Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:White people

2006-09-26T22:22:41Z

71.74.209.82:

{{talkheader}}
{{Controversial3}}

older discussions may be found here [[/Archive 1/]], [[/Archive 2/]], [[/Archive 3/]], [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_%28people%29&oldid=67917931|Archive 4/]]

==W.T.F.==
"They are by far the most superior race on the planet, commanding well over 50% of the global economy"

who the f*** wrote this. I can think of so many things to oppose this.[[User:Angelofdeath275|Angelofdeath275]] 01:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that for real? I'm taking it out.

== White people in the Americas and Oceania ==

"Since the era of European expansion, and especially since the 19th century, most Europeans have come to see most other Europeans as White. Hence, one could say that the indigenous habitat of White people is Europe. Nowadays, countries with a majority of ethnic Europeans, whites — or apparently unmixed — include all the nations of Europe, as well as some of the countries colonized by them through the 15th century to 19th century, such as the United States, Canada, the Russian Far East, Siberia, Australia, New Zealand and as for Latin America, the only two countries whose population is composed by an undisputed majority of European descendants are Argentina and Uruguay."

I changed the specification "— or apparently unmixed —" to include all the countries of white majority outside Europe, not only Argentina or Uruguay. There were some indigenous population in all these coutnries before the European arrival not only in these two countries. In fact there were way more natives in US, and many white AMericans have some native blood, the same happen in Canda, and of course in Australia and New Zeland with the maories, some whites have very few maori blood, and the same happen in Uruguay some people could hape some distant native relative, but it also very rare. So I don't know why the specification was only for two countries.

== ?? ==
The neutrality of this article is disputed.

But the black people page has no issues of neutrality?

== Mulattos ==
i know some mulatto who are whiter than some white folks.
mulatto are half white so they white as they are black to.

== Discussion ==

I have archived the previous discussion (playfully entitled 'Archive 4'). Discussion may now be resumed. Keep it clean and have fun, folks! :D [[User:Smith Jones]] 00:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)]

==Sources==
This article should not be about what is whiteness. It should be about providing good sources to answer that question as well as what subheadings are appropriate.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

== Caucasian==
I thought Caucasian and white are the same.I must be wrong.----Always Gotta Keep It Real, [[User:Cute 1 4 u|Cute 1 4 u]] 02:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:"Caucasian" includes European Whites as well as Jews, Arabs, Iranians, and Indians.

:--[[User:Ryodox|Ryodox]] 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

== Turks are white, of course! ==

I am adding this part because it has been archived and I think the debate is interesting:

Turks are white, of course.
I am reading this discussion about Turks.

1. Turks are white. In Europe, no one considers them as non-white. The problem is that we have here an ignorant American with extremenly stupid ideas.

2. People have been using here genetics to say who is white or not. Well here you have this Cavalli-Sforza map. According to his map, the map of an authority in genetic anthropology, Turks are not only white (white people do not only live in Europe), but they also are European, from a genetic point of view.

3. It is interesting, how acoording to his famous map, some Europeans, of whom there is no discussion here, fall outside the range that is considered European from a genetic point of view, like Finns and many Swedes and Norwegians.

4. If you can read a map, here you have it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cavalli-SforzaMap.jpg

Note how important areas of the Middle East also fall within the European genetic boundaries, colored in green.

And anyone who uses those white supremacist sources to argue who is white or not should be ban from here and I urge administrators to do so.

We are speaking about an anthropological issue, therefore only traditional anthropology or new genetic anthropology should be used if this article is to be taken seriously.

There's debate about who's considered "White". To use pseudo-scientifical and arbitrary grouping to define who is White is ridiculous. You don't cite any sources that claim Turks are White, so it remains a matter of opinion.
)--Ryodox 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC
The anonymous IP User argues that traditional and genetic anthropology prove that the Turks are white when they do not. The anonymous IP User's argument that anthropology only means traditional anthropology or genetics fails to include linguistic and cultural anthropology. Even if we constrict "anthropology" to the two fields anonymous IP User feels like acknowledging, we have disagreement which does not argue for anonymous IP User's point. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza has been noted for using a priori defined races, then grouping them genetically. Even though it is true that some populations are more genetically related than others, his races are nothing but his POV. Traditionally, many anthropologists have defined race differently. These two fields only illustrate that opinions on race vary, but do not prove that the Turks are White.--Dark Tichondrias 11:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Dark T, don't just make vague comments that I'm ignoring cultural anthropology, let's start bringing some intellectual content to the subject (god knows its past time to do that). Just how much have you studied the work of Cavalli-Sforza?
You see, I actually studied Anthropology for four years at the University of Kentucky (and my focus among the four subdivisions was cultural anthropology - which makes your claim that I'm ignoring it curious) and have taken graduate level courses in the anthropology of race and medical anthropology. I'm eager to have someone with which to debate actual intellectual content on this subject. Maybe you are that person? If so, stop holding back. It will be good for the article, too, as actual intellectual content will require sources instead of unsupported claims as has been the overwhelming majority of what has appeared here in the talk page to date.71.74.209.82 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We have been talking about who is white an who is not when we should be talking about what is verifiable and not - what sources can we point to to say what 'white' is. By that requirement, we need to be focused on sources as judged by Wikipedia standards and what they have to say about 'whiteness'. "According to his map, the map of an authority in genetic anthropology, Turks are not only white (white people do not only live in Europe), but they also are European, from a genetic point of view." I think you need to read the article you pointed to, not just look at the pretty pictures.71.74.209.82 21:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

::Rather than refute my assertion that genetics has nothing to do with the definition of white people, [[User:71.74.209.82]] pulls a [[red herring]] about the amount of anthropology classes they have taken. Are you willing to tackle my assertion that genetics has nothing to do with who is white or sidestep the issue only to return to the Cavalli-Sforza map of genetics? Yes, I admit the Turks are genetically closely related to other Europeans, but your quoted statement that "they also are European, from a genetic point of view" confuses the cause. They are not European because they are closely genetically related. They are either European or non-European and they may also be closely genetically related.--[[User:Dark Tichondrias|Dark Tichondrias]] 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I didnt say that genetics did have anything to do with the definition of white people. I dont believe it does. So what am I suppossed to refute? I didnt say that Turks are European from a genetic point of view, Will you be done making up straw men anytime soon?[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I did not claim that traditional and genetic anthropology prove that the Turks are white.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 17:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::For [[User:71.74.209.82]] to deny their argument was that genetics determines who is white is absurd. They have spent a paragraph above and a paragraph in the archive stating the objectivity of human genetics and stating the genetic relationship between Turks and other Europeans. Since they are unable to defend my claim that genetics does not determine who is white, they claim they never made such an argument.--[[User:Dark Tichondrias|Dark Tichondrias]] 20:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:::What have you been reading? I did not say that genetics determines who is white. Again, will you be finished posting straw men anytime soon? If you feel that I have, in fact, stated that genetics determines who is white, please quote and reference where I said that.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

::::This is a quote [[User:71.74.209.82]] added in her/his last post, "According to his map, the map of an authority in genetic anthropology, Turks are not only white (white people do not only live in Europe), but they also are European, from a genetic point of view." After reading this post by [[User:71.74.209.82]], I interpreted this user to be arguing that genetics determines who is European. I feel this is a fair interpretation of the statement originally posted by [[User:71.74.209.82]] and not an intentional straw man argument on my part.--[[User:Dark Tichondrias|Dark Tichondrias]] 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::I just realized that the above statement was said by User:Pinball who did not sign their post. I apologize to [[User:71.74.209.82]]. Since User:Pinball did not sign their post, it looked like [[User:71.74.209.82]] said User:Pinball's statement. This was not an intentional straw man of [[User:71.74.209.82|User:71.74.209.82's]] argument.--[[User:Dark Tichondrias|Dark Tichondrias]] 04:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

-------------------
Enough of personal opinons: Self research and just opinions are against Wiki rules.

1. If anyone has a reputable and verifiable source that Turks are not white bring it foward (I doubt very much you will find one).

2. Genetically speaking they fall withing the boundaries of the European genetic diversity range.

3. Genetically speaking other peoples, like Finns, peoples from the Baltic and many Scandinavians could be considered non-white, but, of course, Scandinavians are white, because whites are not restricted to Europeans, genetically speaking.

4. Anyway, it is interesting to see how peoples that have been traditionally seen as very pure whites, due to their very pale skins, like Scandinavians and peoples from the Baltic republics, are not only the least European, but also the least Caucasian, genetically speaking, and this is a fact that can be seen both in the Cavalli-Sforza map above and in the Macdonalds Hapmap:

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

I think people here are intelligent enough to read a map and to interpret haplogroup (genetic families) pies. Pinball.
-------------

You need to provide sources for your points (1 through 4) as well[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
--------------------
My friend, the funny thing is that the only one who is providing reputable and verifiable sources here it is me. For the rest I only see opinions. Pinball.
----------

Looking over your list of points 1 through 4, I see no sources.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 17:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
----------------
Well, maybe you need to go back to elementary school. If you can read a map and if you can interpret a pie, to say that there are no sources is surrealistic. We need to be more serious here. Pinball.
------------
If you actually read his work instead of contenting yourself with looking at the pretty pictures, you would know that a great deal of his book discusses race as a flawed concept. If race is a flawed concept then race-based categories such as Caucasion are as well.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 17:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-------------
Indeed I agree with you 100% on that, if you share Cavalli´s view. In fact genetic research is a blow in the face to traditional racial theories, but if people here are bent on discussing who is white or not on a racial and genetic basis (I think the term white is just a social and a racist concept in itself), then let us use the scientific data available and let us stop using unverifiable and unreputable opinions. Pinball.

::The users who are bent on discussing genetic connections between Europeans and Middle Easterners are trying to increase the scope of white people to a larger extent than the common definition. The common defintion in the United States is that European descendents are Whites. The US Census Bureau is the only defintion which provides a more expansive defintion. A number of users in the archive discussion have been pushing genetics to expand white people, but those who argued against them have considered genetics of low relevance or irrelavant. For the users who have pushed that genetics determines who is white, User:Pinball's genetic data has a supportive audience. For the other arguers who have not equated White people with genetics, the data is once again of low relevance or irrelevant.--[[User:Dark Tichondrias|Dark Tichondrias]] 20:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
--------
That's what I've been saying. So, where are your sources for saying that Turks -are- of the 'white' race (you did, after all, frame 'whiteness' in terms of genetics) given that the source you claimed goes to great lengths discussing how the white race doesn't exist?[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
------
I am going to ask you the same question: Tell me of a single, reputable source that says that Turks are not white.

And if you claim that Turks are not white and cannot present a source to support it, then tell me please what race Turks are.
------------------
---------
Somehow, for some reason, your teachers way back in junior high failed to teach you something pretty important. It is up to the person who makes a positive assertion to prove their point. As you havent proven or even sourced it, theres no need to provide counter evidence.
However, as race doesnt exist genetically (as per the AAA) and is socially constructed (again as per the AAA), whether or not Turks are white depends on who you ask and in which context they exist.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-----------
-------
This is just plain stupid; most Turks do not have white skin. Any one with eyes can account for that simple fact. And most Europeans do not consider Turks, European.

::Provide a source for that which meets policy for an appropriate source.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
----------------
Well, this site is full of people who make just cheap contributions. If you want a source, you have the Cavalli´s map. If you want another source, you have the U.S. Census. Still I am waiting for you to tell me one source that says that Turks are not white, and still I insist that you tell me what race Turks are supposed to be. If you say that race does not exist, then no one is white, but if we want to speak about white people, then we must classify people in races, or are Turks of no race?.

Then I have to respond to the other stupid comment, however boring I find to go down to this intellectual level.

1. If you say that Turks have no white skin, it is because you have no idea about Turks.

2. Still, some people with the palest of skins, like many Scandinavians, Baltic peoples and Eastern Europeans, are less white, less European and less Caucasian than most other Europeans and Turks, genetically speaking. In other words, if you are very pale, are blond or ashen blond, and especially if on top of that you have slight Asian-like features in your eyes (quite common among many Northern and Eastearn Europeans)and your ancestors come from Northern or Eastern Europe, chances are that you are less European, less white, even less Caucasian than you may think you are. Pinball is my signature from now on.

::As has already been pointed out, read Cavalli-Sforza. Don't just point at the pretty pictures. He makes it clear that race is a bogus concept. As for the US Census, I see no problem at all in describing the US Census and how it defines "whiteness" in the article (making it clear that that definition comes from the US Census and that it is one of many possible definitions for 'whiteness'). That, however, is already in the article.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
----------------
----
The U.S. Census considers Turks, Caucasian. This does not mean the same as white. Nor does it mean European which is basically the same as white.

And I really do doubt that most Turks consider them self white or European, and even if they do consider themselves white it would matter little as others will have to consider them white.

And what you said about no one in Europe consider them non-white is utter bullshit.
I am not really trying to hurt your feelings or anything, but why are you trying to force forward the image that Turks are white, when they are not? There are many Turks living in Europe so it’s not really that hard to look out the window and identify one.
--------
Please don't unarchive the discussion. Some browsers can't read the content if it gets too long. Further, regular archives promote structured discussions. Without them, the talk page will become hopelessly chaotic.
By the way, this is 71.74.209.82. This is my new user account.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
---------------------
Well, again, no source whatsoever that says that Turks are not white, and then, no user here has been able to tell me what race Turks are supposed to be. And the US Census refers to them as white!. Read it well.

I say it very clearly: they are white. If someone here says otherwise:

1. Produce a serious anthropological source that says otherwise.

2. Please, say in what race you classify Turks.

Pinball.
-----------------------

"Produce a serious anthropological source that says otherwise." That was done already - the AAA's statement on race.
And I have no problem at all with the article stating what the US Census classifies as 'white' as long as it isn't claimed to be the definitive source on this issue.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 15:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-------------
Then your position is very simple. White people do not exist. OK then, we have the following:

1. White people do not exist.

2. White people exist. Then Turks are white. Pinball.
--------

:The discussion has come full circle. So now Whites are again anthropological? Only a week ago, it was Whites don't exist and it's a social construct. We are all descended from the same [[amoeba]], but today we celebrate our diversity. If we're all the same, why do we celebrate diversity? So what does "White" mean in 2006? in the English speaking world? on the English version of Wikipedia? White means commonly people of European-descent. This is like asking someone to prove the sky is blue. It is not commonly accepted that [[Ottoman Empire|Turks]], mestizos, North Africans, Arabs, South Asians, etc are White. To say so, there is rule [[WP:RS]], and we have none except the U.S. Census defintion, and the article alreay covers that anomaly. PS This guy didn't think Turks were White!! [[Vlad III the Impaler]] and neither did this person [[Sultan]].

''Please sign and date your talk page comments according to the instrucitons at the top of the page. Please indent responses rather than using lines.'' -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 22:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

==Who archived the discussion?==
'''Can someone unarchive the discussion?''' The discussion is long, but some of this stuff is being covered again, when it has already been discussed. Archiving is sometimes used by people who want to hide things. In this article's case (locked) the whole discussion needs to be open and clear, so people can read where we've been and what's been discussed.

I see we have another, "turks are white" poster similar to the previous "Mexicans are White types", and then when told/proven they are not, they retort, well "nobody is White then....ah I know! It's a social construct!!". It's totally hypocrtical, as the below illogic points out. It's hilarious:

:1. "'''White people exist'''. Turks are White!!!!"

:2 No they are not. [[History of the Turkish people]], [[Seljuq dynasty]],[[Ottoman Empire]]: "The ancestry of the Ottoman Dynasty is traced to the Turkic migrations from Asia, which began during the 10th century.";[[Sultan]],[[Turkic_peoples#Geographical_distribution]] [[Image:Turkic language map.PNG]]

:3. "OK, b-b-but then no White people exist, it's just a social construct!! We're all the same."

:4 But we must "Celebrate our Divesity", including that of European-descended people, aka White people.

Any questions?

If people are all the same (which we are not), then why do we "'''Celebrate Our Diversity'''"? White people exist and the term in 2006 means "people descended from indigenous Europeans" (see the example from Encarta in archived Discussion). Please do not say next "there are no indigenous Europeans", they exist too, as do [[Amerindians]].

If no White people exist, then why is the "White race" always singled out as having committed crimes towards the [[amerindians]] or responsible for [[colonialism]], or routinely criticized for [[discrimination]] of Turks in Europe? Stop the hypocrisy please. Turks, Mexicans/[[mestizo]]s, North Africans, Arabs, and South Asians are not commonly considered White and no sources have been provided. Caucasian doesn't equal White either, that's an outdated concept that's been covered in Talk that's unfortunately been archived. Thanks.

There are too many anti-White people that want to confuse a simple issue because of either their POV or blatant hatred and bigotry against Whites.

[[User:Yukirat|Yukirat]] 22:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

--
We need some serious structure to this talk page.
The following is my attempt to do so. It is not meant to be "debate space" but a description of the debate. Im asking that, if you feel I have not described the debate correctly, to make corrections to my description, but to not engage in actual debate in the description. Okay?
Now, here goes..
:Whiteness either exists or it doesnt, of course the answer to this question may depend on how one defines "whiteness". One can define it genetically, socio-culturally, using both of those, or using neither. "Anthropological" descriptions mean a '''combination''' of genetics '''and''' socio-culturally. To build this article, we need sources for definitions of whiteness, not claims to what those definitions are. There have been four such sources offered; the US Census (whose definition seems not to be in debate), the work of Cavalli-Sforza (which is in debate, one side is using the picture in the Cavalli-Sforza article, the other side is using the actual writings of Cavalli-Sforza), and the AAAs statement on race.
[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:::In response to [[User:Psychohistorian]], the word "anthropological" does not have to mean both genetics and socio-cultural. Anthropology encompasses physical, linguistic, socio-cultural, genetic etc. The use of the word "anthropological" is vague without the specific field of anthropology describing it as an adverb.--[[User:Dark Tichondrias|Dark Tichondrias]] 08:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Thank you for the lesson, but as I explained otherwhere, I have a four year education in Anthropology already including several graduate level courses. I do know what "anthropological" means. I was addressing Sultan's comment, "So now Whites are again anthropological? Only a week ago, it was Whites don't exist and it's a social construct" which, to my reading, suggests that he is not aware of that. I was attempting to explain the four divisions of Anthro (actually, "applied" is sometimes considered a fifth and "computational" is working towards becoming a sixth - the four divisions are a bit old school Anthro 101 kind of stuff and there's also a question of what extent they are even legitimate in that regard when looked at as a matter of praxis - look at, for example, ethnobotany for a good example of how those branches aren't so distinct in praxis, but, to my knowledge, those four are still the only official branches).[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

::The term "White" exists, we all know it. The sky is also blue. The term "White" is used hundreds of million of times, and has been used probably billions of times, and henceforth will be used billions of times. The goal here is how to write an article in the 2006 Wikipedia, English version, for the English-speaking world. Today, in the English-speaking world, the term means commonly: "people of European descent". Why is this so difficult? It's tiresome that this is controversial. Nobody has a problem with the article [[amerindians]] or says that they don't actually exist, they're only a "social construct". How can anyone not define them similarly via genetics, anthropology, or socio-culture? Why are only Whites controversial? Answer: because there are people that hate Whites, but don't also choose to pursue hatreds at [[Amerindians]] similarly. Does anyone need a source for the article [[Amerindians]] or the "sky is blue"? Geez. What we must do is defend against POV pushers that want to say the sky is "sometimes red, orange and yellow", etc. and make that the central subject. Yes, but let's focus on the the article's main point and be honest. Come on, be honest and fair to Whites. We must focus on the basics, '''not the exceptions'''. This an encyclopedia, not a soap-box or a blog, or a place for bigotry like [[whiteness studies]] or [[Race Traitor (publication)|race traitor]]. They have their own articles. Celebrate diversity, and that includes White people. Thanks. PS I have asked before: "what would someone call a person (of which there are hundreds of millions) who is of mixed European descent, say 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Polish, 1/4 Italian, 1/4 German?? This represents the "vast majority" of White people in the world, especially those from the USA, Canada and Australia. There are hundreds of millions of White people that cannot be called anything else but. A European-descended person its White, a Turk is a Turk, an Arab an Arab, a Mexican/[[mestizo]] a mestizo. However what we have here, is so many that have their own personal POV issues to deal with, that they impede the progress of the article about the basic uncontroversial people it represents. Kindly reread the last archive discussion. [[User:Yukirat|Yukirat]] 06:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:Indian, Black, Asian and Hispanic identities are also individual and social constructs that have changed significantly over time, including recent history. To take one of the most recent examples, the number of Americans reporting Native American race has expanded greatly in recent censuses, much more than birthrate can account for. Acknowledging the evolution of racial identities is not hatred of any of these groups, it's just history.

:Cavalli-Sforza's book does not use the term White to identify populations.

:I don't know of any criticism of "Whites" for discriminating against Turks in Europe. Nationalities like Germans have been criticized. Turkey, just like the Southern European countries, has people of physical appearance ranging from Mediterranean to Central European. The Ottoman Empire was a primarily European state centered in the Balkans for much of its history, before later conquering most of the Middle East. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Turkey received large numbers of Muslim refugees from the Balkans and Russia, who were of European appearance. Europeans acknowledge Turkey to be at least partly European. --[[User:JWB|JWB]] 13:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== I am the Fool Who Archived This Discussion ==

I am the one who archived this discussion, on the suggestion of another Wikipedian. I would love to un-archive it for you but I don't know how. Either you do it or you give me a link to a page that shows me how to do it. Four tildes == [[User:Smith Jones|Smith Jones]] 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== Southern Italian/Sicilian "whiteness" ==

In the article it mentions that Northern Italians did not think southern Italains were white. As a southern Italian my skin is a light brown color. I also knw of someGreek-Americans with a similar skin shade. I know of an ethnic arab (fro the UAE) who has lighter skin and he event ans to a lighter color then my skin. The term "white" is obviusly inacurate to describe all Europians.
--------
Have you really ever seen someone that is reaaly white? I mean, white is the colour of a sheet of paper.

It doesn't matter really, you skin tone, your genetic is caucasian/europid. You have white traits too, no black, native american, or asiatic. That's because each of these groups have common genetic. And a common culture. Ypu have white genetics and your ancestors lived in Europe for thousands of years, and had an European culture. Of course there are sub-groups in all races but in a broad sense you're white.

* I mostly agree with the first person who posted, the Southern Italian. As a Southern Italian, I also have light brown skin and have been called non-white on numerous occasions. Maybe as far as "anthropology" goes the first poster and I are "caucasoid," but we are not really "white," and skin color and facial features are really what matters in most societies. And there is no way to prove that Southern Italians have no African or Arabic ancestry (although according to anthropology, Arabs are "white" as well.) I am Southern Italian, and I feel it may be very possible I have some distant non-white ancestry, as does it seem with many other Mediterraneans and Middle Easterners. Do not be offended. I may be completely wrong. I am not one of those close-minded believers in outdated racial theories. However, many dark Mediterraneans and Middle Easterners are not "white," regardless of anthropology. But, hey, a person who is white to you is non-white to some one else. Race can be an ambiguous thing. I'm not trying to start an argument here.—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Callmarcus|Callmarcus]] ([[User talk:Callmarcus|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callmarcus|contribs]]) 2006-08-15 19:27, 19:32, 19:35 and 2006-08-21 01:41.

::This resource should answer all of your questions:

::http://racialreality.shorturl.com/

::---- [[User:Small Victory|Small Victory]]

== This place is full of White Nationalists ==

No hope for the article to be written seriously. Full or even hijacked by Nazi-like tendencies and ignorance. It should be scrapped all together. HCC

Actually there is only one: Yurikat.
--[[User:Ismael76|Ismael76]] 11:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And I'm sure that the "pc-police" constantly slandering this article are doing the right thing? This article has been leaning to the left. Wikipedia should be non-partisen. --[[User:68.192.188.142|68.192.188.142]] 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Its funny how its only the "left-leaning" wikipedians who know how to spell.--[[User:Ismael76|Ismael76]] 23:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how "left-leaning" wikipedians seem to think that they are better then everyone else and that they should comprmise Wikipedia's non-partisenship.

White Nationalists? What's wrong with that eh? am i supposed to be shamed of being white? Am i supposed to be a hippy?

::Indeed, racism is all around the article, only some white-supermen don't want to see it. Sad article, nasty propaganda for the wikipedia. [[User:Uniemelk|Uniemelk]] 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Racism? What racism is here?? NAME IT

==Please help fix a link==
Hello. I am helping with the [[WP:DPL|fixing of links to disambiguation pages]]. I am working on pages which point to the term "Celtic." When this page is finally editable again, would somebody be so kind as to fix the link in the section "Whiteness and white nationalism" in the last paragraph. The link is now to "Celtic." It should point to "Celt." I will try to keep an eye on it, but would appreciate the help from someone who is "on the spot" when the page is made editable. It's bugging me. I have a list of pages to fix, and I am clearing them off one by one, but I can't clear off this one. Grrr...... Thanks. --[[User:Queezbo|Sean Lotz]] 17:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

== Unprotected ==

:I have unprotected the article as it has been fully protected for over two weeks. Also due to the lack of constructive dispute resolution dialogue here, I recommend that the editors of this article restrict themselves to the one revert rule (1RR) especially [[User:Al-Andalus|Al-Andalus]] & [[User:Yukirat|Yukirat]] (who were involved in the previous edit war & had been blocked for 3RR). Any further edit-warring will lead to immediate blocking of the involved parties and re-protection of the article. --[[User:Srikeit|Srikeit]] ([[User talk:Srikeit|Talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Emailuser/Srikeit|Email]]) 09:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

== Why? ==

Are you sure that it's so soon to completely unprotect it? I mean, this article has FOUR pages of discussion and we've barely reached any sort of a coherent discussion, much less an actual consensus. Maybe we should at least make people register in order to edit it so that we don't get un-regged trolls. [[User:Smith Jones|Smith Jones]] 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

==Edit warring already - send to RfC==
Don't edit war in the article. If you can't settle your differences, please create an RfC. It looks like Dark T just barely missed violating the 3RR on this.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Scrap this article, start over ==
It has been noted that this is a awful article in many places in the comments already, but I will second those ideas, this article should be scrapped and started anew. There is way too much pseudo science and opinion in here, a encyclopedia should not ever have opinion unless the article is talking about a specific persons opinion. Race as it is measured in todays terms is not a genetic stand point but a ideological standing, if you want science in the article refer the readers to a 'Human Genetics' page where science is involved, not ideology. - [[User:209.248.175.82|209.248.175.82]] 18:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As it is, the article has painful amounts of detail on a few topics, and missing or unbalanced coverage of other topics. Also, the current article title invites argument about the basic disagreement between essentialist vs. historical/social views of race. The existing content that is still worth saving might be better split up among more specific existing or new articles, something like:

*[[Genetic History of Europe]]
*[[Ethnic groups of the United States]] or [[European Americans]] or [[Immigration to the United States]], [[Demographics of the United States]], [[:Category:History of the United States by ethnic group]]
*[[History of the idea of a white race]]
*[[White supremacy]], [[White nationalism]]
*[[Controversies on racial classification of people and groups]], [[Racial classification]], [[Social interpretations of race]]

[[User:JWB|JWB]] 23:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

== Unsourced material ==
As per Wiki policy, all identified unsourced material will be removed from this article seven days after it has been identified as unsourced unless a proper source is provided by then ("proper" defined by Wiki policy). Anything currently in the article identified with {{fact}} will be removed from the article on August 24, 2006. To provide time, I will wait until then to mark anything else in the article as unsourced.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---
I am removing some of the "unsourced material" tags when the wikilinks within the marked sentence in fact provide extended descriptions of the sources. For example, one of these concerns the sentence "The prehistory of the European peoples can be traced by the examination of archaeological sites, linguistic studies, and by the examination of the sequence of bases of DNA of the people who live in Europe now, or from recovered ancient DNA." the {{fact}} tag is at the end, so it presumeably is calling for some source that describes using ancient DNA to understand the prehistory of the European peoples. However, one can easily see that "ancient DNA" refers to a wikipedia article that does exactly that, with many primary sources. A footnote is therefore not called for in this case, and in fact would be superfluous. That is what wikilinks are for. [[User:DonSiano|DonSiano]] 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---
::You cannot use Wikipedia as a source in this articles (see [[Wikipedia:Reliable Sources]] - it states, "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference.") As many of the tags you removed were done so on the basis that they are referencing Wikipedia, they were improperly removed. Wikipedia cannot self-referene and, so, these statements do not have a source. I really wish you had posted in the discussion page before removing tags as now I have to go back in and replace them manually. If you have an issue with any of the tags which I have put in the article, please discuss your issue here before removing them. Also, the sources need to be clear, for example, please replace the Klein reference with a quote from Klein's book on the subject stating something to the effect of "Richard G. Klein stated in xyz, "<his quote here>". Please do the same for Torroni and Wade.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Many of the citation tags seem to be on obvious, tautological, or noncontroversial sentences. I can't see how this is helping the article. [[User:JWB|JWB]] 05:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:Also, the reliable sources policy is to avoid circular reference, Wikipedia making statements that are backed by Wikipedia and no outside source. If this article quotes information about, say, DNA, and that information is adequately sourced and explained in the DNA article, this is not circular reference and does have an outside source. [[User:JWB|JWB]] 05:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::Exactly. Of course, you should always do your best to find a decent relevant outside source, right? Because [[inbreeding|in-linking]] leads to a lack of [[genetic diversity|encyclopedic diversity]], leading to an [[AIDS|increased susceptibility to disease and a decreased resistance/immune system]]. [[User:Smith Jones|Smith Jones]] 05:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::Well, let's discuss the specific tags which you think are obvious, tautological, or noncontroversial. Point them out and we can discuss whether a source is needed or not.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Ok, here's one. "About 22 millennia ago, glaciers began to cover Europe, rendering much of the region uninhabitable." The fact tag is at the end, which merely points out the obvious that people don't live on glaciers very well. The tag implies that this is controversial or not obvious! But on the other hand, one cannot help but notice that there are pedants abroad who would question that the sun will come up tomorrow....[[User:DonSiano|DonSiano]] 12:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::::The actual Ice Age didn't start until about six million years ago according to this [http://www.skidmore.edu/sssg4/environment/geology.htm link]. The climate started cooling about 22 million years ago, but a cool climate does not automatically mean glaciers. I suspect that the glaciers in Europe didn't start until the Ice Age.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 13:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::::: You ''really'' need to look up the history of the ice age in Europe, and try to learn the difference between ''millenia'' and ''millions''. We don't need to cite undisputed and accepted facts otherwise we'd get statements like "Michelangelo{{fact}} was an Italian{{fact}} artist{{fact}}", with demands to footnote evidence of his name, his nationality and his profession.[[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 13:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::I know that "millenia" is not the same as "million years". I should have caught that. I didn't. Thanks for pointing out my slip. However, I still believe that a cite should be included as I had to go looking for the actual date of the Late Glacial Cold Stage. I'm no longer convinced, however, that a cite is required for that statement.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 14:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, here are the tagged passages with discussion: --[[User:JWB|JWB]] 22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Although different definitions of "White" vary, the most common feature is that the term refers to people with origins in the original peoples of Europe [citation needed]: You would need to find a statistical study to prove or disprove this, but I think most would agree it is true. Do you have another plausible candidate for most common feature?

Across the globe, and especially throughout the Western Hemisphere, a person's consideration as "White" has been affected by past or present colloquial, scientific and legal understandings [citation needed] including definitions based for such purposes as censuses, anti-miscegenation laws, affirmative action, and racial quotas [citation needed]. : So vague, it's not even falsifiable.

By this definition, the areas of the world that are considered to have a predominantly population "White" include all of the countries of Europe, as well as Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States of America, and Uruguay [citation needed]: Not sure what doubt you have about this. Documented in many articles, no controversy.

The prehistory of the European peoples can be traced by the examination of archaeological sites, linguistic studies, and by the examination of the sequence of bases of DNA of the people who live in Europe now, or from recovered ancient DNA [citation needed]: Not sure what doubt you are expressing here either. If it were a claim that prehistory can be completely traced, it would be wrong, but it's not.

The human species (homo sapiens) began to colonize Europe from Africa about 35 millennia ago, arriving along two major channels on either side of the Black Sea [citation needed]: A source on this period would be good (and easy to find in the right Wikipedia articles), but saying that at least some migration happened on these routes is hardly a strong or controversial statement. Period is covered in [[Cro-Magnon]], [[Aurignacian]], [[Middle Paleolithic]] and others.

About 22 millennia ago, glaciers began to cover Europe, rendering much of the region uninhabitable [citation needed]: any article on the Ice Ages, such as [[Last Glacial Maximum]]. Also a basic fact not under controversy.

When the glaciers receded about 16 millennia ago, the populations that had taken refuge were joined by many other waves of peoples from Asia and Africa to re-colonize the newly inhabitable region [4], [5]. Their descendants became the hunter-gatherers who occupied Europe until the advent of agriculture [citation needed]: This is saying there was migration from various places (obvious), and that pre-agricultural people had a pre-agricultural economy (tautological). Or is it the timeline you have doubts about?

The Basques of the Pyrenees and the Saami of Finland both have distinctive pre-Indo-European genetic markers [citation needed] Some neighboring non-Basque areas of Northern Spain, as well as the Welsh, have also been found to share high levels of these genetic markers with the Basques [citation needed]: Not controversial, but relatively recent work that I agree could use references if not already covered in Wikipedia; maybe someone who is up on genetics has it handy. Well publicized in news stories on BBC and other sites in recent years. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/1256894.stm]. Googling "saami genetics" immediately gives a source: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15024688]

and speak non-Indo-European languages [citation needed]: This is the best known fact about the Basques; you only had to look at [[Basque language]] and [[Saami language]] or [[Indo-European language]] or [[European languages]].

The one-drop rule is historically recent.[citation needed]: [[One-drop rule]] covers it at length.

In short, if you're going to dispute points, you should either know something about the field in question, or be willing to do a little basic research. Otherwise you're just taking effort away from clarifying the points that really are controversial. [[User:JWB|JWB]] 22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not contesting whether the content is factual. I'm contesting how it is verified/verifiable. Veracity takes a back seat to verifiability according to Wiki policy. Further, as I already pointed out, you cannot use Wikipedia as a source. As soon as you quote any statement in any Wiki policy article which states that this is meant to apply only to circular references, I'll drop that issue. But until you do, we must go by Wiki policy as stated.
::You are missing the difference between citing Wikipedia as a source ([[Wikipedia:Avoid self-references]] is about mentioning Wikipedia) and wikilinking a mentioned term to the primary Wikipedia article on that topic, which has the detailed discussion and references. (see [[Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain_wikilinks#What generally should be linked]]) Nothing says that every passing, secondary mention of the same fact in every other article has to duplicate the entire referencing process.
:"Documented in many articles, no controversy." "Also a basic fact not under controversy." "this is the best known fact about the Basques" all mean that it will be easy for you to add cites for them.
::The point was exactly that it is easy for you to add cites for facts you claim are not [[Wikipedia:Common knowledge]] and not already referenced in Wikipedia.
:"I think most would agree it is true" is not a source. If most do, indeed, agree it is true, it will be easy for you to add a cite for the statement.
::You are omitting the comment that it would be hard to find statistics on that point, which is obvious enough (near-definitional) that it is unlikely to be explicitly mentioned in research.
:"This is saying there was migration from various places (obvious)" No, its not. Its saying more than that.
::OK, then which part are you disputing?
:"Not sure what doubt you are expressing here either." Its not about doubt, its about verifiability.
::It's about playing a constructive part in the verification effort. Suggest you concentrate on the kind of cases listed in [[Wikipedia:Common knowledge#When to seek professional help]] rather than on tagging facts that are common knowledge, or already referenced in Wikipedia, or sentences that are explanation or simple logic rather than assertion of new facts.
:"So vague, it's not even falsifiable." if its truly that vague, then the statement offers no content and should be removed from the article.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 23:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, you should rewrite the sentence to be more useful or remove it, not citation-tag it when it's unclear there are even any assertions to be referenced. [[User:JWB|JWB]] 07:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:::"You are missing the difference between citing Wikipedia as a source ([[Wikipedia:Avoid self-references]] is about mentioning Wikipedia) and wikilinking a mentioned term to the primary Wikipedia article on that topic, which has the detailed discussion and references. (see [[Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain_wikilinks#What generally should be linked]]) Nothing says that every passing, secondary mention of the same fact in every other article has to duplicate the entire referencing process." The policy is quite clear here. It makes no exceptions for any kind of self-reference.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 23:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
::::So all wikilinks are self-references that need to be removed??? [[User:JWB|JWB]] 01:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::Wikilinks are used to indicate related articles, not to be identified as a source in an article.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 01:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Good, glad you agree on that. [[User:JWB|JWB]] 04:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not sure you do agree, though. Wikilinks are not to be identified as a source in an article. That means that you can't cite another Wiki article as a source in this article. All sources for this article must be referenced in this article.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 04:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Nobody is trying to make other articles References for the article (as opposed to pointing out to you relevant information in articles during a Talk discussion, or Wikilinking when mentioned in the article). The point is that if a fact is adequately referenced to external sources in the proper article on that topic, it is not necessary (and in fact a waste of space and effort) to repeat all the same external references every time the fact is mentioned in another article. [[User:JWB|JWB]] 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Like I said, the instant you can point to a policy which actually says that, I'll drop the issue. Until you do, I'm going to stick to policy and policy states that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and cannot be used as a reference in an article.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

== The ignorance here is too much! ==

Just to comment on a comment that has been done obove and which is in the article: ¨Basques share genetic markers with the Welsh¨, and then they are presented as if they were a genetic minority in Europe!. Man, the genetic markers that you are speaking about is Hg[[ R1b]]. This Haplogroup, genetic family or genetic race, is the most common in Western Europe: About 90% of Basques, Irish and Welsh. About 75% of Scots. About 70% of non-Basque Spaniards and Portuguese. About 60% of the English. About 55-60% of the French. About 60% of Belgians. About 55% of Danes. Have a look at some basic information and avoid writing on an issue that you obviously do not know. See just here a few examples and sources: [[R1b]] and [http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf 1]
[http://www.shirleyassociation.com/NewShirleySite/DNA/haplotype_R1b.html 2]
[http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm 3]
HCC
--------------
:Nobody is saying other populations don't have the same haplotypes at lower levels; in fact the next sentence says exactly that. [[User:JWB|JWB]] 07:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
----
This is actually what the section reads:

The [[Basques]] of the Pyrenees and the [[Saami]] of Finland both have distinctive pre-Indo-European genetic markers {{fact}} and speak non-Indo-European languages {{fact}}, though it is possible their languages may derive from post-Paleolithic but pre-Indo-European migration. ([[Dene-Caucasian]] and [[Uralic]] hypotheses) Some neighboring non-Basque areas of Northern Spain, as well as the [[Welsh]], have also been found to share high levels of these genetic markers with the Basques {{fact}}.

It says: Some neighboring non-Basque areas of Northern Spain, as well as the [[Welsh]], have also been found to share high levels of these genetic markers with the Basques {{fact}}.

You think that is precise? All of Western Europe share high levels of those markers with the Basques (more than 50%)! and the Basques are very different from the Saami, who share a lot of their genes with Asian populations. In short, a mess. HCC.
-----------

:It doesn't contradict either of those assertions. Most genetic markers differ by level; hardly any show 100% vs. 0% differences by population. Neither is there any reason to assume the Basques have anything in particular in common with the Saami. If you feel it needs clarification to avoid those unlikely assumptions, go ahead and add it to the passage, nobody has been stopping you. [[User:JWB|JWB]] 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
:Also, the scenario being discussed still has the pre-Neolithic European population as the main contributor to current European genes, with Neolithic or Indo-European migrants as smaller contributors. So naturally genes of the oldest populations would still be frequent in most later populations. It's hard to see how you are reading the passage the opposite way. [[User:JWB|JWB]] 18:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

== comments about Spaniards ==

I have introduced this comment in the Hispanic Americans:

Spaniards ''(who are a white, European people)''

And somebody deletes it.

Can I ask why?

I am putting it back again.
HCC. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:70.156.157.222|70.156.157.222]] ([[User talk:70.156.157.222|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.156.157.222|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.

: Because it makes no sense? --[[User:Brucevdk|Bruce]] 16:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mind to explain why it makes no sense? HCC.

::Also, the paragraph refers to nationalities of origin. Even if it were specifying race, "White European Spaniards" is redundant. You don't write "White European Germans" every time you write German. '''[[User:Al-Andalus|Al-Andalus]] 04:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)'''
-----

No, Al-Andalus. Taking into accout the cultural level of the people reading and participating in this article it needs to be mentioned. I do not know if you know the Americans, but a high percentage of them think that Spain is somewhere in South America. It also emphasizes the ridiculous way in which the term is used. The comment is more than relevant, so please leave it. HCC.
------

== Split "Historical use of the term in the United States" into new article ==

The section "Historical use of the term in the United States" is already long enough to be a separate article, and it shouldn't dominate this one. Let's split it into, say, [[Whiteness in the United States]], and replace it with a summary. [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 19:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
-----------
I agree with you. This is about white people in general. HCC

:Okay, without objecion, I'll do it now. [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 18:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, I just found [[White American]], so I'll move the material there. [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

== Minor Change ==

I have tried to introduce a comment about Spaniards that some people delete. OK, I am deleting the reference to Spaniards. In fact, to mention Spaniards under Hispanic Americans is absolutely ridiculous. HCC.

== White Nationalism ==

That section is not worthy of this article. I propose deleting it. All other attempts to try and relate Neo-Nazis to what should be a neutral article about white people should be deleted too. [[User:LSLM|Veritas]] 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:Couldn't agree more. This article should be about discussing White people as a race, not talking about a form of extremism. Regards, --[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] | [[User talk:Gramaic|Talk]] 01:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, after a few days, now I have deleted the section on White Nationalism.[[User:LSLM|Veritas]] 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== Ralph Nader and all Lebanese Christians are White and NOT ARAB!! ==

In case you people don't know the history of the lebanese christians, let me inform you. Lebanon was formery known as Phoenicia. The Phoenicians colonized Italy, Spain and what is today known as the UK. They were NOT Arabs!!! Arabs are from Arabia. The Arabs later invaded Phoenicia and brought Islam to the nation. Many christians fled to the mountains where they lived undisturbed for hundreds of years. Some of them did integrate with the Arabs but had to convert to Islam. According to Islamic law, any muslim (Arab) who converts to Christianity, or any other religion, was killed. Because of this, the Christian bloodlines remained "Arab free". So if you claim Lebanese Christians are "non-white" you will have to say the British, Germans and most other Europeans are "non-white" too for the simple reason that they are THE SAME PEOPLE!!!!''''''''''''
—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:196.11.241.43|196.11.241.43]] ([[User talk:196.11.241.43|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/196.11.241.43|contribs]]) 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

* This is very true. Even Stormfront, the white nationalist site has accepted that Lebanese christians are white and need to be saved from the Muslim Arabs that are ruining their country.—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:196.11.241.43|196.11.241.43]] ([[User talk:196.11.241.43|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/196.11.241.43|contribs]]) 20:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

:Phoenicians did not in any meaningful sense colonise Italy or Britain, though they did have some colonies in Spain and on Italian islands (Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia). Their genetic contribution to modern Italian and Spanish populations was probably tiny, especially since the Romans expelled them and heavily recolonised Spain themselves. There's no serious evidence for ''any'' colonies in Britain. That doesn't makes them either "white" or "non-white". There can never be a clear dividing line. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

* No, the Phoenicians did colonize Britian. It was an uninhabited group of islands before they came. Even if you listen to celtic music, you can easily hear the middel eastern connection.
Some proof:
http://phoenicia.org/hittitephoenicians.html 
http://www.laa.org/tours/phoenicians.htm 
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/phoenicians.html 
http://www.lundyisleofavalon.co.uk/history/phoenicia.htm 

::These are not serious scholarly websites. There is no archaeological evidence of Phoenecian settlements or of any Semitic language elements in Celtic languages. If Britain was uninhabited why didn't Semitic dominate, not Brythonic? [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

*I agree that Christians in the Middel East, excluding Arabia are white. But we need to make it clear to people that the Christians have no Arab blood.

* Paul B, you cannot simply deny the facts. This is an Encyclopedia, not a place to vent your own ideas based on nothing but your own ignorance.
Go to this site in a few days:
http://www.newnation.org/NNN-prehistory.html
Their is a link to the connection between the British and Phoenicians. It's not working yet but try it in a couple of days.
The heading is there already.

:Now you are simply revealing your own silliness and ignorance. Go read a serious book on the Phoenicians. Sabatino's ''The Phoenicians'' is quite accessible. And look at some proper academic literature on the population history of Ancient Britain. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 13:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

* Paul B, your outlook on this subject is far too closed minded. You can go study the subject if you want. It is of no importance to me because it is true that the Celts are decended from the Phoenicians. Even if you try to argue that, it still doesn't change the fact that the Lebanese Christians are not Arabs and should be accepted as white.

== The never ending question of the Near East. ==

People from the Near East are white, anthropologically speaking, and the US census considers them as such, for example. We should put an end to these criteria that are so close to Nazi propaganda, ignorance and superstition. The genetic contribution of the Near East in Europe is fundamental. The cultural contribution is even more important, from the introduction of Agriculture in the Neolithic to the influences of the first advanced civilizations, that originated in the Middle East, before Greece and Rome, and are a milestone in the history of Western Civilization. '''Shall we remind here that Jesus, the Apostles, the Virgin Mary, Moses, Abrahan, etc, were all Near Easterners?'''In any case, have a look at this impressive Oxford piece of research. It takes into account scores of studies and analyses 8 different genetic loci, including autosomal, mitocondrial and Y-Chromosome DNA.: [http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03]
[http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/F04]
[http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361]

If Near Easterners are not white for the simple reason of being from the Near East, then Europeans are not white either, because Europeans are a hybrid people of different origins, but mainly of Proto-Basque and Near Eastern origins. We cannot have it both ways or just in an absolutely arbitrary way. [[User:LSLM|Veritas]] 00:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

* People have to realise that the estern border of europe is basically non existent. The british drew a map of what is Europe today a long time ago. There is no natural border so it is logical that their would be "white" or European equivilent people in the Near East.

:Where do you get the idea that the British decided what the border of Europe was? "White" is not a scientific term. It has been used in a variety of ways in different countries at different times, in legal, colloquial and anthrpological terms, though typically more scientific texts adopt technical terms not ordinary-language terms. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 12:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

* the congress of Vienna drew the map of Europe
http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/The-Congress-of-Vienna-5113.html

I will introduce this comment: White people are also common acroos Northern Africa and the Middle east.

==deletion of unsourced material==
I want to remind you all that the content currently marked with {{fact}} will be removed from the article tomorrow unless a proper source in accordance with Wiki policy is found by then. (as I mentioned six days ago) If there are any outstanding issues, I recommend that you either bring it up now or create an RfC.
After removing it, I'll work on identifying more unsourced content in the article for removal. I'm hoping to have all the unsourced content sourced or removed by the time I'm done. [[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 12:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:Expecting anyone to "source" statements like "a person's consideration as "White" has been affected by past or present colloquial, scientific and legal understandings" is utterly silly. Removal of such statements would be totally destructive to the authorship of reasonable summaries. The legal, colloquial and other aspects are addressed in the article. This kind of "policy" pedantry is more reminiscent of [[newspeak]] than anything else. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 13:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::Then I encourage you to make an RfC on the issue. I am making this article confirm tightly to policy considering its ongoing habit to engage in edit wars, its history of being locked down due to edit wars, recurring vandalism, huge amount of unsourced commentary and editorials, and politically charged content. I will not get into the slippery slope of deciding which parts are okay to ignore policy on and which parts are not. I believe that it is better to risk being draconic than to risk that slippery slope. As for the specific comment you mentioned, I ''believe'' that the American Anthropological Association's statement on race can be used as a source on that, but its been a couple of weeks since I've read it.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 13:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::What the article most needs is balanced presentation and clear explanation. Removing all sentences not followed by a link is not going to improve that. Racists or other POV-pushers can find references in support of their arguments just like anyone else; they may likely be more willing to spend a lot of time digging up references than less invested editors.

:::Looking at your recent edit, Chile is now listed as predominantly white with two references, while Argentina has been dropped. In fact Chile is primarily meztizo, and one of the references states this prominently, while the other doesn't comment on the whole nation's composition but studies 3 populations, none listed as white and one mestizo with estimated .49 Amerindian; and Argentina is much more European. Anyone looking at the [[Chile]] and [[Argentina]] articles would have caught this. This is a great example of how blind application of referencing or any other policy can actually reduce accuracy. [[User:JWB|JWB]] 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

::::"White", here is defined as "from Europe". Mestizo heritage is part European and part indigenous, so they do, in fact, trace their heritage to Europe and, so, are white by this definition. So, saying that Chile's population is predominately white, by the definition provided, is correct. Argentina's article (as with all the countries' articles which were removed from this list) has no source for saying that it is primarily European and, so, that comment was removed from this article as being unsourced.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 17:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::[[Demographics of Argentina]] has at least one source for Argentina. Please do not remove information that is already properly sourced in Wikipedia as well as correct.

:::::Your interpretation of the European-descent definition as partial descent flagrantly contradicts the normal one. By this criterion, half of African-Americans are white. It is incredible that you can present bizarre, confusing positions like this as noncontroversial, and still pose as an expert vetting the statements in this article. (Chileans are no doubt white by many sociocultural definitions, but I hope you are not missing the difference.) [[User:JWB|JWB]] 22:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::As soon as you can source a "normal definition of white", we'll start talking about it. Until then, I don't see much point in assuming that there is a "normal definition of white". And I assure you that I won't remove information that is already properly sourced in Wikipidia. I will remove information that is not already properly sourced as per Wiki standards. Your objection seems to be with the definition given, not with the application of it. In that case, I'm inviting you to provide another definition - a sourced definition - which won't have the same problem.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 00:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::I didn't mean a "normal definition" (the difference between various definitions is most of what this article is about, and each of the major viewpoints needs to be mentioned and summarized per Wikipedia policy on controversial issues) but the normal interpretation of that particular definition. Do you have any source for a definition of "white" as of European descent, but including people of half European and half non-Caucasoid descent? [[User:JWB|JWB]] 02:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Do you have a source that says that the "normal" interpretation of that particular definition does not include people of half European and half non-Caucasoid descent? You want to say "this is the definition". I apply that definition. You go on to say "this is an exception, do you have a soure saying that this is not the exception?" The thing is, however, that it is your positive assertion that "this is an exception" that requires a source. It is additional information and additional information requires sources. I don't need a source to keep additional information (I think its more noise than information, but that's beside the point) out of an article.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 03:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::Insistance by some people, such as Al-Andalus, to ignore policy is starting to cause a problem. I recommend, again, that any issues people have with adhering to written policy be turned into an RfC.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 03:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::Al-Andalus just broke the 3RR rule. I'll be reporting it in fifteen minutes if not changed back.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 03:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::I am not claiming anything is an exception. I am telling you you can't redefine black as white. European descent means European descent. Please list a source for whatever definition you are putting in the article, or else it is as eligible for deletion as unsourced material. (unlike the statement about Argentina which you are deleting despite sourcing) I'll be away for a week or so, have fun. [[User:JWB|JWB]] 05:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm not redefining anything. I'm using the definition as is. Your objection is with the fact that the definition you are trying to use is leading to results you don't like. The problem is in two parts. 1.) the definition itself is unsourced 2.) the exception to the definition that you want is also unsourced. European descent means European descent. We agree on that. If a person can trace his lineage back to Europe (as can be done with Mestizos, for example), they are of European descent. That's definitional.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 12:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the wording a bit, to see if it helps. It was "Although different definitions of "White" vary, the most common feature is that it refers to people with origins in the original peoples of [[Europe]]." Obviously, if there are various features to any single definition of white, then the most common feature among all the definitions of white couldn't "refer to people with origins...". If something "refers" then that means that that is in fact the actual definition.

I have reqorded it to read "Although different definitions of "White" vary, the most common feature among them is that it encompasses people with origins in the original peoples of [[Europe]]." '''[[User:Al-Andalus|Al-Andalus]] 03:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)'''

:You readded the other countries which have no source for them. However, I reviewed the policy on 3RR and it turns out that it only applies after the third revert. You've only reverted three times so far. So, I jumped the gun.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 03:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

::No, I've only reverted twice, my previous edits where edits, not reverts. You have done three reverts today, that were all revers, none were edits. I'm about to go to do my third. Do it after me an you'll be on your forth. '''[[User:Al-Andalus|Al-Andalus]] 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)'''

== White Nationalism section ==

I said several days ago that I was going to delete that part. To restore it without discussion is vadalism. [[User:LSLM|Veritas]] 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:Please always use an edit summary. Deleting content without explanation is vandalism. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 22:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Willbeback, I have explained it above. I have waited several days since my comments and I only got one response from a user that agreed with me. What do you have to say to that? [[User:LSLM|Veritas]] 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== Just because ==

Just because no one bothered to put forth any effort in giving feedback on you doesn't mean that you aren't a [[Vandal|uncircumsized philistine]]! Aroint thee, o manipulator of articles! Get thee back into [[Uncyclopedia]]!

Seriously though, you should put comments so that stuff like this doesn't happen. we're not telepaths here and even if we were why would we spend our time reading your mind to figure out where you explained what you did. Jeez, it's like a bleeding jungle in here. Where are the elephants!? [[User:Smith Jones|Smith Jones]] 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

== Vandals ==

Watch out for vandals mass deleting content. [[User:70.156.140.143|70.156.140.143]] 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

==Requested move==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the {{{type|proposal}}}. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

{{{result|The result of the debate was}}} '''move''' to White people. [[User:Joelr31|Joelito]] ([[User talk:Joelr31|talk]]) 19:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[[White (people)]] → [[White people]] – It fits in more with the naming of [[Black people]] and others. [[User:Hamish2k|''Hamish'']] ([[User talk:Hamish2k|Talk]]) 12:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
===Survey===
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>

*'''Support''' --[[User:Hamish2k|''Hamish'']] ([[User talk:Hamish2k|Talk]]) 12:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''', the standard is to use "people" at the ends of ethnicities (e.g. [[French people]] instead of [[French (people)]]), and this falls in that category (though not exactly, of course). — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' [[User:Mehrdadd|Mehrdad]] 12:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I don't any reasons the brackets are necessary. --[[User:My old username|My old username]] 00:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''--[[User:Aldux|Aldux]] 21:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

===Discussion===
Add any additional comments

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>

==Neolithic==

Deleting the neolithic/paleolithic section as a violation of [[WP:MNFSPOV]] [[User:Ethan Mitchell|Ethan Mitchell]] 23:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've deleted the whole godawful section. [[User:Ethan Mitchell|Ethan Mitchell]] 00:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

:Why is it godawful? It's not just neolithic, and it's relevant as a short summary on the subject. [[WP:OMG|I don't understand what WP:MNFSPOV is supposed to mean]]. I'm restoring it. Please discuss such major changes before making them. Note that I don't disagree that the section needs a lot of work to flow with the rest of the text, but I still think it shold be included in some way (the current version, e.g., is much abridged as it should be). — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 00:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
::OK, you've reverted it, I'm discussing it. [[WP:MNFSPOV]] is, of course, the as-yet-unwritten wikipedia policy against the "Makes no fucking sense point of view." The neolithic and the paleolithic are terms for eras of cultural development, not groups of people. Talking about how they are interbreeding is like saying "The Greeks were descended 75% from the Stone Age and 25% from Post-Punk" or something to that effect. Plus, it isn't cited, because there's nothing to cite. The rest of the section is maybe, maybe, an atrocious attempt to talk about the geneography of Europe. But nothing previously in the article has discussed ''why'' we are talking about the genography of Europe, and in any event, the section in question is not really helpful to the reader, it is simply a fistful of random, disarticulated claims that are presumably supposed to establish some kind of scientific basis for whiteness. [[User:Ethan Mitchell|Ethan Mitchell]] 02:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

== Basketball world cup. US vs Argentina for bronze medal. ==

Needless to say how some/many Americans die to present themselves as a white country, while like so much to present others as non-white, for example all Hispanics and all Hispanic countries as a rule. Watch the game on the 2nd of September 2006. It is very funny to see white America play versus non-white Hispanics. By the way, they won the broze medal. Tomorrow is the final: Spain/Greece. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 13:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when Argentines are not white?!! lol. They are whitter than the Amnericans check out the article.

== What about Hispanics in the US? ==

I have posted this in the Hispanic article and in the White American article, but I think it is also of interest here:

Often I have to see how the term Hispanic is used in the US with non-white/non-European connotations or as if Hispanics were just newly arrived aliens in the country. In fact they were there much before and have been there much longer than the rest of Americans.

Then we have the following:

1. Hispanic refers obviousy to a huge group of people from different countries.

2. These peoples are bonded together by their language and culture.

3. These peoples come from countries with very diverse racial make-ups and which derive from the [[Spanish Empire]], which by the way included almost the entire US, which was for centuries part of this Empire under the name of [[New Spain]]. Yes, very funny, is it not? Almost the entire US were part of New Spain!.

4. Just look at the extension of the Spanish Empire to have an idea of what he term Hispanic can encompass.

But the most funny thing is the following:

Hispanics are not considered white as a rule of thumb in the US, as if the US was a country
whiter than some Hispanic American Countries like Argentina or Uruguay, which is not.

Then we have the mother country for all Hispanics, [[Spain]].

So, what is up with Spaniards, are they Hispanic or not?. Are they white or not?.

Well, they are Hispanic all right, in the same way that the English are Anglos.

So, we have a group of Hispanics, who are responsible for the name itself (Hispanic comes from Hispania and Hispania is Latin for Spain) who were the colonial power in the US for centuries and who happen to be white/European. White? Well, some people say that Southern Europeans are not that white. Let us see:

In fact, according to new genetic research they happen to be the whitest/most genuine European nation in Europe. See the following:

[http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf 1]

If you are not familiar with genetic anthropology note that [[R1b]] is the oldest and most common genetic family in Europe, and where does it show the highest concentration? In Spain.

But if you do not have enough with [[Haplogroups]], and want more genetic loci tested, let us see:

[http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03 2]
[http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/F04 3]
[http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361 4]

Well, this Oxford article takes into acount 8 genetic loci, quite complete indeed. Spain is refered to as IberiaS.

What is the result? Again, Spain has the highest concentration of Native European genes, called Basque genes in this study and Iberian genes in other studies, followed closely by the Britons, the Portuguese and the North Italians.

Conclusion:

The fathers of all Hispanics happen to be the whitest/most European people in Europe. As a result, there are a lot of Hispanics that are whiter than those who think themselves as the genuine white people/European-Americans in the US. And all this according to serious, rigorous genetic science, not to concepts and ideas that are sometimes close to mental retardation. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC

:Believe or not, but I often find English and Yanks in the Net who swear that Spaniards aren't white.--[[User:Menah the Great|Menah the Great]] 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

==The Middle East Special Case==
I have removed this statement twice but I had my edit reverted. "The Middle East is a special case, since anthropologically it is a natural continuation of Europe, or Europe a natural continuation of the Middle East."
The statement does not make sense. The Middle East is genetically similar to Europe and Middle Easterners may share physical features with Southern Europeans, but this does not imply a "natural continuation of Europe". The [[WP:NOR|original research]] argument is appeal to [[appeal to nature]], trying to argue that Middle Easterners should be White. Of course, it is inconsequential that Middle Easterners are genetically similar to Europeans when White means origins from Europe. Since it is original research and irrelevant to being white, I have removed it. --[[User:Dark Tichondrias|Dark Tichondrias]] 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. White does not equal Europe. That statment has been only held traditionally by extreme White Nationalists, but never by serious anthropologists, like Coon. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Races_Of_Europe

2. The Middle East shares a lot of genetic markers with all Europeans, in some cases, more with North Europeans than with South Europeans. In fact it is one of the two main genetic components of Europeans, stemming from the Neolithic, along with the Basque or Native European Component, stemming from the Paleolithic. See this:

[http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03 2]
[http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/F04 3]
[http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361 4]

We only have two possible serious sources to speak about races.

1. Traditional anthropology: It always included Near Easterns as white. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Races_Of_Europe

We can argue that traditional anthropology is outdaded and proven wrong in many aspects, which is true, but then we only have Genetic Anthropology.

According to Genetic Anthrology, Europe is a natural continuation of the Middle East, as DNA analysis is proving and you can see in the links above. So I am restoring it. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 00:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And for Ismael, the sources that I introduce are global, therefore better by definition. People should try and use global sources. When people try and use individual studies we run the risk of presenting a distorted picture or just a wrong picture, because often non-specialists try and come to their own conclusions, and also because all things, also in genetics, must be presented in their context. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 00:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:Coon used Caucasoid and White interchangeably. The genetic argument for the including Middle Easterners as White is still original research. To synchronize the statement with the sources, the statement should say that Middle Easterns are genetically similar to Europeans. Saying that they are a "natural continuation", is original research. National governments and White supremacist organizations are also good sources for determining who is white.--[[User:Dark Tichondrias|Dark Tichondrias]] 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Veritas you will not stop people from getting the "wrong picture" by blanking sections of articles and deleting sources. If there is some info in it which you dislike or you find offensive (maybe you are Greek, Albanian or Spanish?) please discuss it here beforehand rather than POV pushing.... Your article is interesting although, in my opinion, not very informative on recent north african admixture. It shows a Map in which Scandinavians are presented as "Near Easterners" and is more likely to present "a wrong picture" than any.

Please add info rather than deleting it. Thankyou.
--[[User:Ismael76|Ismael76]] 10:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ismael, I am Spanish, Basque by the way. Where are you from? The section of the article that we are discussing has a lot of mistakes, which are difficult to understand if whoever wrote it is supposed to know just basic things about genetic anthropology.

1. Haplogroup E3b did not originate in the Horn of Africa. It did in the Middle East, and there were Neolithic migrations from there into Africa and Europe. Just check Cavalii-Sfroza, or on-line, the Genographic Project by National Geographic.

2. To use individual sources in the hands of obvious amateurs is one of the biggest mistakes that people can make in genetics and probably in anything else. Some of them are not duplicated, others are contradictory and they are often presented out of context.

3. It is very important that the sources that we use are global. Taking into account scores of other studies, elaborating on weighted averages. Otherwise we will be confronted often with manipulation or errors.

4. So, please provide as many global studies as you can, elaborated by experts.

I think that the section right now is a mess, sorry, but it is one of the worst sections in the article, so it should be removed. By the way, why do you remove mine, which is on global conlusions drawn by experts about the whole of Europe and not by a Wiki amateur on some aspects here and some there?

As to Dark, sorry but Nazi or White Nationalist groups have no credit at all, let alone in an Encyclopeadia. Anyway, I have no problem with that part of the version as it reads right now. I will add, "and traditional anthropology". If you want sources I can give you some.[[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 17:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:White supremacist organizations are a very good source for finding a point of view about who is White. I do not know of the Wikipedia policy that says racist organizations cannot be used as sources.--[[User:Dark Tichondrias|Dark Tichondrias]] 04:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::"Haplogroup E3b did not originate in the Horn of Africa. It did in the Middle East." You've got to be kidding me. E3b is known to have originated there, specifically probably in the Somali male population.
::*For E3, "''Both phylogeography and microsatellite variance suggest that E-P2 and its derivative, E-M35, probably '''originated in eastern Africa'''. This inference is further supported by the presence of additional Hg E lineal diversification and by the highest frequency of E-P2* and E-M35* in the same region''" (Semino et al. 2004).
::*For E3b, "''An estimate of 25.6 ky for the TMRCA was obtained for the haplogroup E3b, which most likely '''originated in Eastern Africa'''''" (Cruciani et al. 2004).
::*For E3b1, "''The frequency of haplogroup E3b1* in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the '''Somali male population is the origin''' of this haplogroup''" (Sanchez et al. 2005). As you can see, it is very clear that E3, E3b, and E3b1 all derived in East Africa. Some of E3b1's derivatives also originated there, though a few developed after their expansion into North Africa, the Southwestern Asia, and Southeastern Europe. Case closed. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 06:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This section started out with the concerns for the statement that the Middle East is anthropologically "a natural continuation of Europe, or Europe a natural continuation of the Middle East". I also have those concerns, but for a different reason.

The Middle East may anthropologically be a natural continuation of Europe or vice versa, however, the Middle East is as much a natural continuation of North Africa (ie. Egypt and the Maghreb) and the Horn of Africa (which colides with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and the Oman by way of the the narrow [[Gulf of Aden]]) or vice versa. Then North Africa and the Horn of Africa are natural continuations of Sub-Saharan Africa or vice versa. You get the point. '''[[User:Al-Andalus|Al-Andalus]] 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)'''

== Ismael, stop your Vandalism. ==

Ismael, I have been trying to reason with you. You have no idea of genetic anthropology, yet you continue picking up one study here and another there just to please yourself. If you can provide global studies made by experts, provide them. To use individual studies the way you do, without context, weighted averages, comparison among countries, is an old trick that is only being done by manipulators: Just see this: http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/spain.htm

You are doing the same thing. I am going to be here, stopping amateurs or maipulators like you. If you can provide one single global study about Europeans, encompassing all of them, do it. Otherwise, stop it. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 00:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:I don't know what you're talking about LSLM. You choose one study that's not very descriptive to make your claims and delete the numerous studies (and very specific regarding lineages, i.e. E3b, J, etc.) represented before and you accuse others of dishonesty? Citing stormfront, a white nationalist site, is ''not'' going to help your cause any. In fact, the link provided is about Spain, not at all about the areas described as most affected: Sicily, Greece, and Southeastern Europe. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 01:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::In any case practically ALL European lineages come from the Middle East, Asia and Africa originally, only some came later than others. The section, following a historical timeline, is on modern (i.e. the last 1000 years) admixture with modern middle easterners and modern north africans... The source provided by Veritas seems to be manipulative of concepts since it divides Europeans in 2 basic elements: Paleolithic peoples and post-Paleolithic- calling all post-paleolithic peoples ''neareasterners'' (and in Veritas' mind non-white). Thus Scandinavians, Germans and Poles are considered "neareastern" and "less white" than Sicilians, for example. His source is not relevant to the section, although it may be relevant to the first section regarding prehistoric movements of people.

::This type of manipulation is typical, in my opinion, of Southern European (in this case Spanish) racists who go ballistic when they read stuff on how they are "racially mixed" on neonazi websites such as the one mentioned above. [[User:Ismael76|Ismael76]] 11:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The main problem here is the level of ignorance of people who want to contribute:

1. All Europeans are mixed. They are a hybrid people of course. I have been trying to point this out from the beginning. I have also been trying to state that "white" does not equal "European" etc. BUT WE HAVE TO BE MORE RIGOROUS.

2. If people here continue to claim that they can draw their own conclusions from some individual studies, while they try and ignore global studies that have been carried out by experts, taking into account scores of other studies, calculating weighted averages, taking into account results that have been duplicated, putting them in the European context, etc. then we have a BIG PROBLEM with the quality of the article.

3. One example of the capacity of some people participating here is that they claim that E3b originated in the Horn of Africa, when everyone knows that it did in the Middle East. I have already mentioned where to find the informaton, but it seems to no avail, while Ismael continues to say the opposite but does not give a single source. Eventually we all come from Africa, but we need rigour to obtain credibility.

4. Another example is when some people here speak about the time frame.

a) One thousand years seems long for written history.

b) Four thousand years or ten thousand years is nothing for biological, human evolution and genetic history. And this part is about that. Maybe some people have not realized that.

c) One million years is nothing for geology.

In short, people here confuse concepts, and speak of genetics and human evolution as if the time frame was just traditional History.

5. Some people here do not even read the links. The Oxford article (some people here think that Oxford is a piece of crap) has used thousands of people for their research. It has used 21st century people form Anatolia (Turkey), Irak and the area as a reference for what is called Near Eastern and 21st century poeple from the Basque Country for what is called Basque. Not people from Prehistory. And it is from 2004.

6. Whatever you say, your methodology and articles are the same or very similar to those used by pages like Stormfront. What a good technique!.

7. Some people here seem to find it difficult to believe that a Southern European people, like the Spanish, show a higher proportion of Basque, or Native European genes than the rest of Europe, in spite of the fact that the majority of Basques are themselves Spanish. Why? No one, at the moment,familiar whith Genetic Anthrolopogy, even questions that. In fact, the genetic family that originated those markers came from Spain and can be seen easily in hapmaps and in global studies.

8. The North African and Near Eastern Admixture in Spain is obvious. The thing is that that admixture is as important or even more important in the rest of Southern and Nothern European countries.

9. Some people here continue to try and spread the idea that Northern Eurpeans are whiter and less mixed that Southern Europeans, as can be seen in some of the comments above, following the very serious Nordicist and Afrocentrist tradition, in sptie of all the evidence available, and it seems that when people use the same arguments that they have traditionally used to say that, for Example, Spaniards are more charateristically European than North Europeans, they begin to go around as much as they can, because that obviously contradicts they preconceived views of reality and wishful thinking.

10. And to conclude. None of you has been able to provide a single global study of Europeans, that take them into account as a whole. But you seem so badly interested in deleteing them! Right now the most complete global study on Europeans has been published by Oxford and done in 2004 and you continue to erase it. What is your kind? I would like to know.

Anyway, I have seen that somebody has restored the page as it was some time ago. I think it is all right like that (though with some mistakes that I will analyse later on when I have the time and the energy). But do not erase again the 2004 Oxford article on Europeans or you will be reported as a very suspicious Vandal. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 17:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:I am not going to erase it but I think it should be incorporated on the neolithic expansion section. Both the paleolithic and neolithic expansion section are in a mess. Veritas instead of arguing over the who is whiter than who, you could help fix the first two sections and incorporate your references into them, since they refer to the neolithic and "Aryan" expansions into Europe. [[User:Ismael76|Ismael76]] 18:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:I also wanted to say that Veritas, you have a wrong concept about the importance of the time frame. You say tens of thousand years are nothing for genetics when many of these genetic markers we are talking about are only 20,000 years old. The first modern europeans settled the continent (from the middle east and Africa) around 35,000 years ago. The (according to you less "white") neolithic settlers carriers of haplogroups E3b among others arrived 10 thousand years ago, dividing in the Thesalo Danubian Branch which colonised Northern Europe and the Mediterranean branch which colonised Southern Europe. Since they arrived through Turkey, the genetic imprint of these settlers is obviously stronger in the east of the continent than in the Atlantic fringe.

:The division of neolithic settlers as non-whites and paleolithic hunter gatherers as whites is a gross misconception and a product of your imagination. Both came from outside Europe originally and both were probably not phenotypically white-skinned when they arrived. It is funny because it makes the Basques (i.e. you) the most "white" people in the world! You dismiss proof of modern exchanges across the Med as irrelevant because they are nothing in comparison with the neolithic invasion of "non-whites" which you have fabricated. I think you should stop with this fantasy because it is confusing for people who are not acquainted with this issue.

:Have a think about what I have written before you answer. [[User:Ismael76|Ismael76]] 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::Ismael, I think that at the end of the day we may be closer than we think. I have been insisting in this article that white does not equal European, and a lot of people have been insisting on the opossite and erasing my comments about the Middle East. I have just gone down the line following the rationale of those who insists that white is European, as if the Europeans were a race apart, and have pointed out the conclusions that you can arrive at following such stupid premise. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I am glad we agree on this basic conception. At the end of the day we are arguing on an article which deals with a social construct and not a "race". I dont think you are a racist, but in fighting racist perspectives, I feel you are unintentionally using similar racialist arguments and discourse. That is why I attacked you and you have to admit that you did fall for the "we spaniards/basques are as white as everyone else" argument.

:::The problem is that the original "whites" do not really exist biologically or historically and that should be our starting point. In this sense, this article should perhaps deal with white identity from a social constructivist perspective and not attempt to offer a supposed genetic history of an imagined homogenous ethnic group. [[User:Ismael76|Ismael76]] 19:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::There I do not agree with you. Why? Because the term white has often, very often been used in conjuction with ancestry and genetics concepts by people like Nordicists, Nazis later, and then important sectors of societies in many countries, that although not Nazis themselves, were fundamentally influenced by these ideologies in the 19th and 20th centuries. In fact, still today lots of people respond in some societies to the stereotypes forged by those ideologies. Therefore it would be tendentious to ignore genetics now that DNA analysis is available and is turning on those theories and their lingering influence in many minds.

::::On the other hand, the term white has been used in anthropology. It is sad that we devote so much to the concept just as it was proposed by said ideologies. That is why I admit that I am often suspicious of people here, because I cannot understand that they want to devote so much to the part of the concept developed by Nazis and think that it is normal to do so. It is as if we would elaborate on concepts here according to the world view of the Talibans. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::In any case can you please help fix the paleolithic and neolithic sections. Your oxford references would be helpful there. I have deleted statements saying that neolithic and Indoeuropean influence was minimal since, considering your sources and the hapmaps, it is evident that this is not true. I also think that much of what is written in the neolithic expansion section (relating to basques etc...) should be in the paleolithic section... We seem to agree on the basics on all points related to these sections so i leave it in your hands. [[User:Ismael76|Ismael76]] 22:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::Well, I agree with you. Only one commnent. It is healthy not to mix concepts. When we speak of genetics we speak of Nearn Eastern or Neolithic. Indoeuropean is a lisguistic concept and to mix it with genetics right now is wishful thinking. Anyway, I am leaving the Wiki English world for some time, I will concentrate on some French articles, so I encourage you to do those changes yourself. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 17:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You people must all learn how to indent. I've fixed it for now. '''[[User:Al-Andalus|Al-Andalus]] 01:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)'''

== Yom, pay attention ==

Do not erase verifiable contributions from reputable sources. I am not erasing any. I am citing sources published in Oxford Journals and carried out by Universities and as recent as 2004.

All verifiable and reputable sources have the right to me mentioned and cited in relation to any point. You know well Wiki rules. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Yom that some of your edits seem to be POV-pushing, Veritas.--[[User:Ismael76|Ismael76]] 19:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ismael, all verifiable and reputable sources have the right to be mentioned and cited in relation to any point. You know well Wiki rules.

I do not have the right to erase any of your comments, as long as you introduce a source to support them, in spite of the fact that I think that you want to know more than the Oxford Article scientits that have done the job of analysing Europeans as a whole, taking into account many more genetic loci and many more studies than the ones that you are presenting. You seem to be trying to do what they have done, come to global conclusions. Well, I do not deny you the right to do so, this is Wiki, but do not do to others what you do not want to be done to yourself. It is a very simple and civil principle. On the other hand, when and if I introduce a comment that is not verifiable or properly sourced, please tell me, I will try and see, and if you are right, I will erase it myself.

As to the technique of using single studies, isolated and out of context, using just one sinlge genetic marker, read this:

'''''The questions asked in this and in comparable studies are of the type: When did a certain group of people come to occupy a certain area? How extensive was the admixture between them and other groups? These are questions about population history, and they need be addressed considering simultaneously as many independent alleles as possible. Analyses of single or physically linked alleles or haplotypes, no matter how informative they appear to be, are unlikely to contain all the information needed to infer and quantify population processes, and may also, if selected a posteriori, produce biased inferences.'''''

This is in the discussion section of the Oxford article.

Read also this:

'''"With one exception, previous estimates of the Paleolithic and Neolithic contributions to the European gene pools did not consider the entire genetic diversity in the populations of interest. Rather, admixture rates were equated with the frequencies of haplotypes whose distribution was supposed to be a result of Neolithic admixture (Semino et al. 2000; Richards et al. 2002). In the only study so far that explicitly models the admixture process at the population level, Chikhi et al. (2002) described Y-chromosome patterns supporting a significantly greater genetic contribution of Neolithic farmers than did previous studies based on the same data (Semino et al. 2000) and an east-west gradient of Neolithic admixture across Europe. In this study, we found similar patterns"'''

As you can see, this is not just another study. As it states, this is the only piece of research (along wiht another mentioned there and with which it coincides) that has taken into account the entire genetic diversity in the populations of interest.

See also this:

'''''The Y chromosome, and mtDNA, can be regarded as single, if very large and polymorphic, loci. Because gene flow processes, including admixture, affect the entire genome, the greater the number of systems considered, the more robust the inferences about admixture (e.g., Bertorelle and Excoffier 1998). Eight systems are not many, but this is the first admixture study of Europe based on multiple loci'''. Its results suggest that the main components in the genomes of Europeans may be referred to admixing populations whose genes resembled, respectively, the modern Basque and Near Eastern populations. Only a small fraction of the European alleles seems to come from North Africa, whereas a fourth component of Northern European (and ultimately, perhaps, Northern Asian) origin is nonzero, but it is largely restricted to the northeast of the continent. Near Eastern admixture is less than 30% only in the British Isles and exceeds 50% over much of the continent, with a decrease of this contribution as the geographic distance from the Near East increases (figs. 3 and 5).'''

As you can see, it states that it is the first admixture study of Europe based on multiple loci: '''Eight systems are not many, but this is the first admixture study of Europe based on multiple loci'''.

It is also important to remind people of this: '''Its results suggest that the main components in the genomes of Europeans may be referred to admixing populations whose genes resembled, respectively, the modern Basque and Near Eastern populations'''

In other words, we can argue about why this is so, but the similarities are 21st century, among the present populations discussed, as it is obvious. I say so, because sometimes people speak as if the similarities were among the Prehistoric peoples. the connection can be more o less ancient, but the relationship is among populations in the 21st century.

This is also of interest: '''First of all, in general, low levels of genetic differentiation are observed among present-day European populations at the genomic level (Romualdi et al. 2002; Rosenberg et al. 2002), which does not support the idea that drift was the main evolutionary force affecting them.'''

Which means that Europeans have drifted virtually nothing in biological/genetic terms for the last 10.000/4000 years.

Well, read please the article carefully. As you will understand it is exhausting for me to have to expalin everything.

To finish, I could also make use of other partial studies (I call them partial because they only make use of one or very few genetic markers, and therefore are not so reliable to trace population movements), like this one, dated also 2004 and thus very recent: http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/EJHG_2004_v12_p855.pdf, but I use the Oxford one because as it is obvious it is much more complete than anything done before.

[[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

:"Which means that Europeans have drifted virtually nothing in biological/genetic terms for the last 10.000/4000 years." Not true. See Brace et al. 2005, "The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form." The title itself demonstrates the large variation. I don't understand why you put a slash after 10 000 and put 4 000 after it. Are you saying little changes took place between 10 000 BP and 4 000 BP or saying that there has been little change for 10k or 4k. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 22:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

== Admixture from Neolithic expansion from Anatolia vs. North African admixture==

It seems necessary to make a distinction between these two elements. The Neolithic element in the European gene pool is huge and even dominant in much of Eastern and South Eastern Europe. North African admixture seems to be inexistant in most of Europe except for Iberia and Sicily.

This can be seen from an analysis of the various subclades of Y-chromosome Haplogroup E3b which distinguish between those of Balkan/Anatolian origin (such as E-M78) and those of recent North African origin (E-M81). See : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181965

Of all E3b subclades in North africa (E3b is carried by an overwhelming majority of North African populations) E-M81 is by far the most common, E-M78 (the most common European subclade) being minor or absent in most population samples.

Taking Italy as an example, an analysis of E3b in different regions of the country shows that this haplogroup is of continental origin (reaching the peninsula either from the North or from Greece) except for in Sicily where about 5.5% of male lineages can be ascertained to be of North African origin (see table 1).

Similar conclusions can be extrapolated from Mtdna analysis.

Any comments?

--[[User:Ismael76|Ismael76]] 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the percentages for North African influence. Sometimes I have the feeling that we are discussing things and then we basically agree on them. A 5.5% percentage of North African admixture for Sicily, for example, is very much in line with most research done in that area, take or add 1 or 2. So, where do we not agree?.

Why do you oversee that the Near Eastern element is highest in Scandinavia?

In any case, see please my comments in the previous talk section just here above. I discuss basic concepts there that are also valid for this part.
[[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 00:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:No disagreement here. As I said on the [[Sub-Saharan admixture in Europe]] talk page, we have to consider that the 5.5% comes from E3b with specific mutations that arose in North Africa, but that all of these migrations (Neolithic agriculturalists and North African admixture) are themselves simply vectors for an E3b that originated in East Africa. I don't mean to stress this, but sometimes I feel as if people put a lot of weight on later developments in an attempt to separate the gene from its actual sub-Saharan origin. — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 17:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am happy to agree with you on this 100%. It is true that I expressed myself wrong on this issue, but I never made any changes in the body of the article in this respect. E3b seems to have spread into two branches from the Near East into Northern Africa and Europe in the Neolithic, but if we go back enough it originated in Africa. In fact, all modern humans originated in Africa and populated the rest of the world starting about 80.000 thousand years ago, as we all know. Still, E3b originated as a later mutation in our DNA also in Africa (maybe it should be stressed that the mutations that we are talking about are extremely small and marginal, just enough to make subdivisions into population groups but nothing more that that, just in case that some people think that we are talking here of big or important mutations. Maybe we should also include in the beginning of the Genetic section that all modern humans originated in Africa and colonized the rest of the world starting about 80000 years ago. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry about the Africa comment. It is already in the Paleolithic section. Yet, I have to say that there is a mistake. When humans arrived in Europe 350000/40000 years ago, they did not come directly from Africa, which they had left about 40.000 years before. In any case, I do not want to make that change myself. If you agree with me do it yourselves. Still, to be rigorous is fundamental for the credibility of any article. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

== People, please, use the discussion page. ==

People, please, use the discussion page for its purpose, not the Edit summary. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 17:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Didnt have time to!

Veritas the articles you are citing are misleading. There is a decreasing cline of Neolithic component as one moves west along the northern shore of the Mediterranean. This is not an issue. However, North African admixture has not been detected anywhere in Europe except in Sicily and Iberia according to all studies available.--[[User:Ismael76|Ismael76]] 17:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ismael, you cannot accuse Oxford University Press of publishing misleading articles. You now that better than me, I am sure. Remember the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, here you have the second:

#[[Image:GreenPillar.png|35px|left]] '''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Wikipedia has a neutral point of view]]''', which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]], authoritative [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|sources]] whenever possible, especially on [[Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles|controversial topics]]. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk page]] and follow [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]].

You are citing studies and I have expressed my opinions about them, read above, but I am not deleting them. Verifiable and reputable sources that express different opinions about an issue have the right to be cited, all of them, not some yes and others not. So I think you should retore yourself the citation of the article that you have deleted. I think it is just fair and according to Wiki standards. Otherwise, I will do it myself after a couple of hours. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 17:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

:I'm sorry for my reversions. I had misread where your additions had gone; I thought that you were saying that the E3b studies had been contradicted by other studies, and not studies on mtDNA from North Africa (i.e. I thought you had added that note under the section on E3b, not specifically under the part about North African genetic influence). — [[User:Yom|ዮም]] | '''[[Special:Emailuser/Yom|(Yom)]]''' | [[User talk:Yom|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yom|contribs]] • [[WP:ETH|Ethiopia]] 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am happy that you see my position. As to E3b, read above.[[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 18:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Veritas: I think you are not following my line of argument. It is as follows:

'''The genetic landscape of Europe is basically formed by two major components, both originating in the Middle East: The Paleolithic component which entered Europe around 35,000 years ago and the Neolithic component which entered around 10 000 years ago, both entering across the Bosphorous. The Paleolithic component is strongest in the west of the continent (particularly in the British isles and in the Basque region) and the Neolithic component is strongest in the Balkan region. North African admixture is practically absent from the entire continent except for Sicily and Iberia, where it can be found at low levels. Low levels of admixture from Asian populations can equally be found in peripheral regions in Eastern parts of the continent decreasing rapidly west of the Urals. Low levels of Subsaharan admixture are also found in Western Europe, reaching their peak in Iberia.'''

The article you cite is perfectly valid, and it concludes that there is a decreasing cline in the Neolithic component along the western shore of the Mediterranean. No one is denying this straightforward fact. However, you have placed it in the section related to North African admixture and this is misleading. Furthermore, the article is already cited in its corresponding section related to Neolithic expansions.

I have the impression that your contributions to this article are conditioned by a desire to minimise the "non-european" element in the country of your nationality and maximize that of the rest. You should take a step back and try to take a more professional approach. It is simply a question of language so as not to confuse readers.

The reason I erase your edit to the section is because the language and the context of the citation is wrong. Your source has not been erased, it is already present in its corresponding section.
--[[User:Ismael76|Ismael76]] 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, now you try the ad personam argument. Is that the best you can do?. The citation is absolutely relevant because it refers directly to the issue discussed. Absolutely no reason to erase it, let alone because you do not agree with it. It is not my words. It is a citation and it is in perfect unison with what you have pasted above, so please refrain form deleting realible and verifiable material. How often have I to repeat basic concepts. I do not agree with many of your sources and comments, but I do not delete them. Let them both be there and read again the second pillar of Wiki. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 21:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry for the ad hominem but there are elements in your behaviour which point to this accusation. In what way do the hapmaps or the Oxford article contradict the study on Haplotype 5? You are making the section nonsensical. I would also like to point out that your citation is not from the source provided but from a 1999 study, which seems to contradicts more recent publications. Please reformulate your edit rather than reverting, so that it has some form of coherence rather than a nonsensical ''"yes but all of the above is rubbish because..."''.
--[[User:Ismael76|Ismael76]] 21:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ismael, you are atacking me personally. The citation is in the Oxford article. The straw that breaks the camel's back is that you say that the citation in not in the article. You resort to denying the obvious. Or maybe you have not read it and you are discussing it and reverting without reading!? You just want to impose your point of view and delete others, even with verifiable and reputable sources. You ignore Wiki pillar number 2 about different points of view, and all Wiki principles. Even Yom, after reading well my comments, has said that he was sorry for reverting my contribution.

Still, following my style of respect, rigour and effort to undestand other parties I am going to reformulate it. I hope that it pleases you now. Yet, you will understand that I am not going to be discussing this ad infinitum. This is the last time. I dislike it profoundly to take these measures, but you are leaving me no choice. Next time that you revert VERIFIABLE AND REPUTABLE SOURCES you are going to be reported and we are going to see who is breaking the rules and not following Wiki standards and procedures.
[[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
:This article is still neutralized. Hahahah! Racist nonsense all over it! --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 02:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

== OK Ismael. I am reporting you. ==

You just want to impose your view and only your point of view no matter how, deleting other's contribution's and imposing yours. You do not respect other contributors at all and make changes without using the discussion page. I am going to report your behaviour. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 17:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

== Deleting MY comments in here will do nothing but piss me off ==

===Haplotypes are a Joke===
-
- You guys are so funny with your haplotypes and DNA. DNA did not play a role in deciding who or who was not white at anytime in history prior to the past 20 years (which totally is after the fact anyway). No court order, legal policy, or referendum was ever devised to describe whiteness based on DNA. You guys are hilarious. Some of you hope that DNA will somehow prove (or vindicate in your POV) that whiteness is a scientifically based "real" racial concept, that of course ultimately relates to the justification of racist ideologies about intelligence, entitlement and white priviledge. OH cross your fingers and hope the haplotypes win the day!
- Let me reply for those of you who wish to refute me, because the replies are the same "Oh Zaph, although we admire your commitment to equality and what not, it is true that DNA haplotypes are found in a particular pattern consistent with the racial category of whiteness, so that means that race is real and whiteness is based on DNA". Let me explain why this kind of reply is nonsense. DNA variations relates to the results of population changes and migrations and what not over time. They do not instigate these changes. So there wasn't some "original" white kid or family born somewhere thousands of years ago that decided to unilaterally seperate into their "functional race". In addition, the Western European ancestors did not magically become white, they gradually interacted over time to develop their traits. These traits are not however unique to them, as they developed also in other NON white people (like blonde hair, a so called Caucasoid skull, colored eyes, straight hair, etc). Each group of people have traits that combine to form a unique "race" but all of these traits are found in "other races". To say "oh all of those traits came from some pure white ancestor and were divided up through admixture over the generations" is so crap. If the traits can be environmentally adapted to create white people in Europe, why cant some of these same traits be created from enviromental conditions elsewhere? Think before you conclude! --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 04:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And deleting MY comments in here will do nothing except attract my attention more so to this website. Doing so without a reason only incites me more. doing so ANONYMOUSLY without a reason activates me to such a degree that I will reign over this article crushing all opposition. You do not want me to be in here. Do not delete my comments. --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 09:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

69.141.3.45 - stay a coward. But know this, I will restore any and all content I contribute if deleted on this talk page. thank you for attracting my attention moreso to this article. --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 09:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

== Race as Social Construct ==

I think it's important to remember that race is a ''[[social construct]]''. Scientists no longer believe that there is a valid, scientifically identifiable concept as "race." It is important to remember that, just like with any category of identity, who is considered white changes with context.

The annonymous user below wrote "Turks are white. In Europe, no one considers them as non-white. The problem is that we have here an ignorant American with extremenly stupid ideas." Racism is an extremely stupid idea. The question is not what is the "right" or "wrong" category, but what is viewed as true within a given context. The nature of a social construct is that the policial context determines the identity. For instance, if turks are considered white in Europe, then in Europe they are white. If they are not considered white in the US, then in the US they are not white. It is not a simple process and there is no "scientific" truth as to what a socially constructed category refers to.

For instance, until relatively recently (anybody know when?) Irish, Jews, Greeks, Italians weren't considered White. The category didn't even exist until 18th century or so, when Western Europeans created the concept in order to justify colonization.[[User:Fokion|Fokion]] 06:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:Many scientists do believe that race is a useful concept, and many would say that the term "social construct" is far to amorphous to be useful. ''Every'' concept is a "social construct", including medical ones such as, say, "schizophrenia". That category also didn't exist until it was defined at a specific moment in history. That's not the same as saying it isn't real or that "the political context determines its identity". It's certainly possible to imagine a political context in which the "schizophenia" could not exist as a diagnosis, or in which it could not be imagined (after all we have a socio-political context in South Africa in which the HIV model of AIDS being denied). But to say that is to say that politics is a ''potentially'' determinative condition, not that it is, by definition, determinative. Indeed the weight of scientific evidence is often a powerful force in itself. I think you also confuse popular categories (such as "white") with scientific definitions, which have often contradicted popular categories. The construction of typologies in race, as in many other areas, has certainly changed over time and has been contested territory, but the attempt to map and label human populations if the world is as valid as the attempt to map and label physical geography of the world. It is false to say that Irish, Jews etc etc have only been considered white recently. It would be truer to say that in ''some contexts'' their status in relation to that term was ''disputed''. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 07:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

::Can you link to -one- statement by a mainstream scientific association (such as the American Sociological Association, the American Medical Association, etc.) which states that race is more than a social construct? I mean, if you want the idea that "many scientists" believe in race as more than a social construct to be taken seriously, you need to point us to a scientific association which is taken seriously which has stated so. Frankly, I think these "many scientists" you are talking about are just like the "many scientists" who believe in [[Intelligent Design]], that is to say, -not- scientists at all. -[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 13:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::See the [[Race]] page: (Risch et al. 2002), (Bamshad 2005). Neil Risch argues: "One could make the same arguments about sex and age! ... you can undermine any definitional system... In a recent study... we actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome [than] between genetic structure [based on microsatellite markers] versus [racial] self-description, [which had a] 99.9% concordance... So you could argue that sex is also a problematic category. And there are differences between sex and gender; self-identification may not be correlated with biology perfectly. And there is sexism. And you can talk about age the same way. A person's chronological age does not correspond perfectly with his biological age for a variety of reasons, both inherited and non-inherited. Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? ... Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility"(Gitschier 2005). Note also (Harpending and Rogers 2000), (Bamshad et al. 2003), (Edwards 2003), (Bamshad et al. 2004), (Tang et al. 2005), (Rosenberg et al. 2005): "If enough markers are used... individuals can be partitioned into genetic clusters that match major geographic subdivisions of the globe". Note also the section on [[Arthur Jensen]]'s work, discussed [[Race#Jensen.27s_interpretations_of_race|here]]. As Rich says, any system of categories can be shown to be problematic, like periodization in history. That does not make it fiction. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 13:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::::He seems to be conflating sex and gender. Gender, like race, is socially created. Sex is not. His data shows that gender is a problematic category. It does -not- show that sex is. Until science progresses to the point that a man can get pregnant from another man, sex categories seem pretty absolute. -[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 14:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::I think Risch is quite clear about the the fact that there are two separate but related issues: sex-identification and models of gender difference. He says that even sex-identification cannot be precisely correlated to markers on the X chomosome and that ''in addition to that'' there is also the distinction between sex and gender. I assume that he is correlating the latter distinction to that between genetic and social categories of race. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 14:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::"He says that even sex-identification cannot be precisely correlated to markers on the X chomosome" - unsurprising considering that self-identification of sex is a gender issue, not a sex one (both Kleinman and Harroway were my introduction into the idea of the body as socially marked - perhaps they would be a good place for you to start if this concept is confusing). It seems that you are saying that he's saying "the distinction between gender issues and gender issues are unclear and this proves that race has a genetic basis". -[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Please don't make silly patronising comments. If this issue is confusing it is because it ''is'' confusing, and terminology is contested. It's not because I'm confused and you aren't. That's why there is no clear consensus. There is no absolute or "correct" usage of the distinction between the terms "sex" and "gender". However, I was trying to clarify what seemed to be Risch's usage in this passage. Hense my use of the expression sex-identification (i.e. identification as male or female). You are also wandering off on a tangent to avoid acknowledging the central issue. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 11:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::I wasn't intending to be patronizing, though reading back, I see how my post might have come across that way. Sorry. But, to be honest with you, I don't think the distinction between gender and sex is all that confusing. One male is not able to impregnate another. One self identified man can impregnate another self identified man (say, if one of them is in the middle of a sex changing process and already identifies as the other sex). I'm trying to figure out what you see as the central issue (I can't avoid it because I don't even know what it is) and I'm trying to see some sort of central issue in the context of this gender vs. sex thing in a way that makes sense. This gender vs. sex thing just isn't relevant and Risch, from the way you've described his work, doesn't even seem to understand what gender and sex are. -[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 12:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::: One thing that is striking is that, while there are two words, "sex" and "gender" to distinguish between the biological and the social construct, there is only one word-- "race"-- which stands for both. Although many gender theorists (sorry, i can't drop any names at the moment) are beginning to question the clear-line distinction between sex and gender. My point with race is that it is much more complicated than a simple biological fact. Yes, there are observable distinctions between people. However, there is a much more complicated story involved. For instance, why is it that somebody with one black parent and one white parent is considered black in the United States? Why were Irish not considered white (in the United States) until recently? why, as a previous writer has stated, are Turkish people considered white in Europe but not in the United States? Mexican-Americans were largely classified as white in the United States until the Chicano movement in the 1960s.

::::::Yes, there are distinctions that can be made between people, but they are not clear-cut, and the creation of these distinctions has served more of a political, prescriptive role than an actually useful descriptive role. My point is that you cannot treat race as a simply scientific issue, as an issue of "figuring out" through genetics and other studies what the "true" identity of a person is, because that is not what's relevant for determining somebody's race. What determines somebody's race is how they are percieved in a political context. [[User:Fokion|Fokion]] 17:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

== First two paragraphs ==

You guys broke your backs trying to rewrite those first two paragraphs and still don't have it quite right. --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 04:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

:This article has gone through a lot of edits since the last time I did any work on it. Instead of criticizing me for working on it, why don't you get off your high horse and do some work on it? Its easy to criticize. Its harder to do good edits. Further, I am trying to edit it slowly so that people have time to comment and make their own edits in between (I want it to be a collaborative effort). So, if your gripe with me is that I'm taking my time, well, tough.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

:The current introduction is appalling. This is not an article about opinion in the "United States", nor should it be leaping to judgements in the opening sentences. The quotation from the AAA is also distorted to give a conclusion unwarranted by what it actually says ("However, the American Anthropological Association states that "there is greater variation within 'racial' groups than between them" meaning that there is no objectively demarcated "European phenotype"."). The quotation clearly refers to genetic variation. This does not support the claim that there is "no objectively demarcated European phenotype." (indeed, if there weren't we would never be able to even ''recognise'' that a person had European ancestry). This is argumentation to make a point, not description of usage, which is what is needed here. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 11:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

::its talking about genetic variation. [[Phenotype]] refers to genetics. Saying that there is more variation within the 'racial' group then between it and others means precisely that there are no objectively demarcated racial phenotypes. We can't recognize that a person has a European ancestry. We can only make a ton of assumptions about whether a person has a European ancestry.
If you take the time to read the AAA's statement on race in its entirety, you'll see that it says exactly what I was getting at when I made that edit to the article. -[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 12:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

::There isn't much work I can do since your whole perspective seeks to prove that there is some genetic basis for classifying the "White" race. Phenotype certainly refers to genetics, but our human capacity to distinguish a "lightskinned" black person from a "swarthy" Arab or Italian doesn't come from a genetic anything, it comes from a socialization and attitudes. The reason I sarcastically respond is because too often the idea is to somehow prove that phenotype is proven via "genotype" when obviously people who are so genetically different (Australian Aborigianls, Africans, Aeta, etc) look so similar. Furthermore "European" ancestry only relates to the region, not to the fictitious "race". Certainly non-Aryan (or whatever you want to call it) people have been inhabiting Europe throughout ancient history. No haplotype anything is going to help you figure out if they looked like a pink skinned german with a pointy nose, or an Ethiopian with kinky hair and a flat nose. Haplotyping is just another form of stereotyping. And even if it gives a good indication today, it does nothing to go through history. One Ethiopian who looked like a black man could have been the progenator of all the white E3-whatever hapoltypes that you all rely on to find the "real white race". how do I know this is realistic? Because this haplotyping does not make one white nor black. --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 08:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

::Or let me put it in a nutshell: haplotyping => historical relationships => racial justification => generalizations about different races => assumptions about those differences in abilities => assumptions about intellectual ability based on these prior historical relationships => classifying some as inferior and superior => justifying racism. (remember, IQ references are or were in this article and many seek to retain them)

I am here to make sure people realize that nothing genetic can reliably explain or justify any 'race' anything. The genetic similarities amoung Europeans are valid and obviously make sense, but those genetic expressions that are unrelated to skin color, facial features, and hair texture are therefore unrelated to the 'race' of white people. If these haplotypes (or whatever else) can propegate throughout black people in abundance, then they certainly could have in antiquity the other way around. --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 08:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

let me put it yet another way. YOu cannot reliably trace backwards in time the subtle variations in people which appear on their faces by simply looking into their genetic profile. It would be like trying to figure out which group of butterflies in Africa were responsible for the storms that came across the Atlantic and hurricained the American coastline. You can assume the progenators looked a particular way, but even a 1% presence in ancient Europe of black africans is enough to certainly affect the demographic in history. And remember thats just 1% from those genetic fingerprints that are agreed to be UNQUESTIONABLY "black". We don't deal with those variations that cross the gamut between the races. I have seen pictures of Black African looking Sicilians from the 19th century in photographs. I am sure your haplotype sequencing would show the same 1% Sub-Saharan DNA. So what. It obviously no longer matters. --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 08:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is why the argument of whether or not race is real is such an invalid argument. For some who choose to view race as a genetic profile, it's obviously real to them, but they won't cope with the visual variations that defy their expectations, so in reality race is not "real", it's idealized or idolized in the minds of those who wish it to be so. It's like the skull craniometry all over again. Start off by calling a certain group of skulls caucasoid, then you find skulls in the same area same time period that are more similar to the 'non-caucasoids'. First order of business, you discount THOSE. If that doesn't work, then you simply change the category (narrowly define it), if THAT doesn't work, then you expand it, and then those non-caucasoids simply become some distant caucasoid cousins that just appear to not be caucasoid. How on earth do you guys expect some ancient Ethiopian progenator to give you a good indicator of the entire white 'race'? You know the man didn't look like a Danish boy with blonde hair, blue eyes, a big chin jutting out and long lank hair! How many different ways do I need to explain the obvious? --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 08:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

::"There isn't much work I can do since your whole perspective seeks to prove that there is some genetic basis for classifying the "White" race." You don't ever bother to actually ead other peoples' comments before replying to them, do you? I mean, my entire point is that there is no genetic justification for race groups in Hss. The fact that you miss my point when I feel like its been spelled out clearly is something which concerns me.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 18:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Psychohistorian, you are right. I don't really bother, you know why? Because I am not here for personal vindettas. I am not arguing against you personally nor am I addressing you personally. The "you" is in fact the collective contributions. If there was a way i can convey "you" in the plural... maybe using "yall" instead, or the general atmosphere, then perhaps I can get a point across. The point is, this article is based on first demonstrating a genetic foundation for the white race. Since the contributors are hell bent on holding on to that myth (obviously to keep their subconscious sense of superiority intact), there is no point on me going to the other areas. Do I see pictures of white people on this article? No. How can an objective person get any idea what the heck a white person is, if they have to rely on some silly genetic variables that certainly would not do the job? Oh this kinky haired, dark skinned Ethiopian is white because they have haplotype "Bu11-CRAP" in their genetic code. I contributed to this article many times in the past, when it was still in the Caucasoid skull stage. give me credit, at least I helped neutralize that nonsense. --[[User:Zaphnathpaaneah|Zaphnathpaaneah]] 06:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

== White as "Anglo" versus Hispanic, with non-white connotations. ==

More interesting stuff about the term Hispanic and White. As I have already expressed, the term Hispanic comes from Spain, and is related to Spanish people. In the US the term white has often been used with “Anglo” connnotations, that is, coming from England, and then, from the British Isles.

OK, let us see further:

As I have already pointed out, in addition to the many studies that have been previously done pointing in the same direction, like the following one published by Oxford University Press, in which surprising genetic similarities can be seen between Britons and Spaniards (Spain is IberiaS) , in a genetic piece of research that takes inot account up to 8 genetic loci, including mitocondrial, autosomal and Y-Chromosome DNA. See:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

Now we have another Oxford book whose reference has been just published two days ago and is appearing all over the British Isles in different newspapers, in which the origins of most Britons seem to be getting clearer and clearer and astonishingly very different from what it was previously thought.

It is also interesting in relation to the similarities between the Celtic areas of Britain and England.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece

I cannot open the entire article from here, but it continues like this:

A team from Oxford University has discovered that the Celts, Britain's indigenous people, are descended from a tribe of Iberian fishermen who crossed the Bay of Biscay 6,000 years ago. DNA analysis reveals they have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to the inhabitants of coastal regions of Spain, whose own ancestors migrated north between 4,000 and 5,000BC.

The discovery, by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, will herald a change in scientific understanding of Britishness.

People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes of central Europe. Professor Sykes, who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel. Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain but only a few thousand in number. These people were later subsumed into a larger Celtic tribe... '''The majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish."'''
Professor Sykes spent five years taking DNA samples from 10,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.

Research on their "Y" chromosome, which subjects inherit from their fathers, revealed that all but a tiny percentage of the volunteers were originally descended from one of six clans who arrived in the UK in several waves of immigration prior to the Norman conquest.

The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.

These DNA "fingerprints" have enabled Professor Sykes to create the first genetic maps of the British Isles, which are analysed in Blood of the Isles, a book published this week. The maps show that Celts are most dominant in areas of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But, contrary to popular myth, the Celtic clan is also strongly represented elsewhere in the British Isles.
"Although Celtic countries have previously thought of themselves as being genetically different from the English, this is emphatically not the case," Professor Sykes said.

You can also see these other newspapers:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=406108&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

In short, it seems that the Spanish had acquired a taste for boat building and ocean going much before they arrived in America.

It also seems that the term Hispanic, with the sense of relating to Spain or the Spanish or for people with such ancestry, is in fact much broader than it was previously thought, and it actually should include the English and other Britons. Life is full of surprises, is it not? [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 14:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

==Genetic History of Europe==
The article mentions several times that "white" does not necessarily mean on a global level that the person came from Europe. That being the case, the section on the genetic history of Europe seems like a very poor fit for the article. I recommend that it be moved to the article on the genetic history of Europe and that a link to that page be made in the references section. -[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
:The European genetics section is irrelevant to determining who is White, so it should not be in the article. It might not even be good as a link in "See Also".--[[User:Dark Tichondrias|Dark Tichondrias]] 04:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Then who determines who is white, the Americans? What Americans? The Afgans, what Afgans? White is being used here referring to a race, and obviously therefore in terms of biology and ancestry: It is not something that you can convert to, like religion. You inherit it, in your genes. The problem is that ancestry could never be proven as it can now, and a lot of ideas, concepts and myths about whites and their ancestries, that were taken very seriously before, are now going down the drain. White refers to a race. In the 21st century you cannot talk of race anymore and ignore the only scientific basis to determime what a race is: Biology, becasue biology is the only fully scientific basis that provides information about both, ancestry and links and similarities between groups of people. If you want to talk about nationality, that is different, if you want to talk about ethnicity, that is different too, but if you talk about race, then race is biological, simple and short.

It is about time that infantile, puerile and flat out stupid concepts about race are abandoned, especially in what is supposed to be an Encyclopeadia, like the concepts of White, Brown or Black, putting together a person from Sri Lanka and a Native American from Ecuador under the same group, "brown", while the person from Shri Lanka can be racially much closer related to a European than to a Native American, or a Native Australian and a Sub-Saharan African under the same race "Black". Ignorance should not be tolerated anywhere, let alone in a place like this, and in terms of race, only biology has an objective and scientific claim.

So I do not only think that the section is necessary, in any case it should be expanded to include all the peoples that traditional anthropology has grouped together as white, and even the name of the section should be changed, because it is not only about genetic history, but about genetic relationships right now, in the 21st century and as we are discussing here. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 17:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

::Traditional anthropology does -not group people together as white, brown, or whatever. In fact, as is stated in the article itself, the AAA flat out disagrees with everything you just posted Veritas. At the minimum, you should have to provide reputable sources to prove why this section belongs in this article (that is, to prove that race is genetic and 'white' is tied to European genetics). Unless you can do that, then the only sensible thing to do is to side with the evidence and since the evidence makes it clear that 'white' and European genetic history are apples and oranges, the section doesn't belong in this article.-[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 18:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course not, that is what some ignorant people have been doing, people who continue to use White and Brown to refer to people and classify them in races, like the president of the US recently and repeatedly, for example. And he is no freak, he just expresses the public ignorance of the people of his country. What happens is that some people in some societies have a big problem with race, and they do not know how to handle it because they have no idea about race. Traditional anthropology has always spoken of white people as the native people of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, but since the beginning in this article a lot of people have been introducing concepts about whiteness that are based on pure ignorance and racism. As I said, if you want to talk about race, do it the only way possible. Ad populum arguments are not acceptable in an encyclopeadia, especially when those ad populum arguments reflect just a bunch of ignorant racist mindsets disguised in a veil of political correctness.
Some people in some places continue to think that Presindent Bush is whiter that Sadam Hussein, based of course on a biological concept of race. If they are so ignorant as to believe so, they need a scientific response, and that response is in genetics and biology, that is why I even propose expanding these section to include the Near East, North Africa, India, etc, all places with clear racial, genetic and biological links to the so-called white people.

Another option is to delete the genetic section, of course, but in that case the article should be very clean, describing white people as the people that I have mentioned, without a single residue of white nationalism in it and without a single trace of ignorant ad populum arguments. In that case I agree that the genetic section would not be necessary. [[User:LSLM|Veritas et Severitas]] 21:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

::"describing white people as the people that I have mentioned" Why should we write the article describing white people in that way when you can provide no reputable sources for it??? -[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Affirmative action

2006-09-12T21:05:58Z

71.74.209.82: You don't know the NPOV policy. You need to read it. It is not NPOV to say that Kirsanow states this.

{{Cleanup-date|July 2006}}
{{Unreferenced}}
'''Affirmative action''' ([[American English|U.S. English]]), or '''Positive Discrimination''' ([[British English]]), is a policy or a program of giving certain preferences to certain (usually "under-represented") groups. This typically focuses on [[education]], [[employment]], [[government contracts]], [[health care]], or [[social welfare]].

Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address past discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity. <ref name=Richardson-1998>L. Anita Richardson, [http://www.abanet.org/publiced/focus/spr98const.html What Is the Constitutional Status of Affirmative Action?: Reading Tea Leaves], in ''ABA Focus on Law Studies'', Spring 1998, Volume XIII Number 2, [[American Bar Association]]; part of article series "Affirmative Action: A Dialogue on Race, Gender, Equality and Law in America". Accessed online September 7, 2006.</ref>
There is much debate concerning claims that it fails to achieve its desired goal, and that it has unintended and undesirable side-effects. There are also claims that the practice is itself [[racism|racist]] and/or [[sexism|sexist]].

==Purpose==
Affirmative action began as a corrective measure for governmental and social injustices against demographic groups that have been subjected to prejudice. Such groups are characterized most commonly by [[race]], [[Gender role|gender]], or [[ethnicity]]. Affirmative action seeks to increase the representation of these demographic groups in fields of study and work in which they have traditionally been underrepresented.

A certain group or gender may be less proportionately represented in an area, often employment or education, due predominantly, in the view of proponents, to past or ongoing discrimination against members of the group. The theory is that a simple adoption of [[meritocracy|meritocratic]] principles along the lines of [[race-blind]]ness or [[gender-blind|gender-blindness]] will not suffice to change the situation for several reasons:
*Discrimination practices of the past preclude the acquisition of 'merit' by limiting access to educational opportunities and job experiences.
*Ostensible measures of 'merit' may well be biased toward the same groups who are already empowered.
*Regardless of overt principles, people already in positions of power are likely to hire people they already know, and/or people from similar backgrounds.
The history of "affirmative" or "positive" remedies command the wrongdoer to do something. In contrast, "negative" remedies command the wrongdoer not to do something or to stop doing something.

When members of targeted groups are actively sought or preferred, the reason given is usually that this is necessary to compensate for advantages that groups such as males or those of [[Europe]]an descent have derived from racism (including [[institutional racism]] and unconscious racism), sexism (similarly), and results of historical circumstances. Past discrimination will be sufficiently countered that such a strategy will no longer be necessary: the power elite will reflect the demographics of society at large.

Though affirmative action in the [[United States]] is primarily associated with race and gender, the [[American civil rights movement]] originally gave as its purpose the correction of a history of oppression against all [[working-class]] and low-income people; [[woman|women]] have figured as prominently as [[ethnic minority|ethnic minorities]] among its beneficiaries.{{Citation needed}}

Affirmative action in [[South Africa]] has a narrower focus, aiming at reversing primarily race-based and, to a lesser extent, gender-based discrimination. In India, the focus has mostly been on undoing [[caste]] discrimination.

==Implementation worldwide==

In some countries which have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal by a requirement to treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "[[race-blind]]", in hopes that it is effective against discrimination without engaging in [[reverse discrimination]].

In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action", as opposed to "positive discrimination".

===United States===
''Main article: [[Affirmative Action in the United States]]''

In the [[United States]], affirmative action mostly applies at transition points—times when individuals are changing their employment or enrollment. Employers and universities often have policies favoring [[black]], [[hispanic]] or female applicants. In states like California and New York, immigrants, both legal and illegal, receive affirmative action benefits as well.

Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases, and has been contested on [[United States Constitution|constitutional]] grounds. Writing in 1998 L. Anita Richardson commented that U.S. courts have generally accepted affirmative action as a remedy for actual present-time discrimination; rejected it outright for the goal of simply promoting diversity; and that "There is much debate… about dealing with the lingering, pernicious effects of past racial discrimination".<ref name=Richardson-1998 />

According to Peter Kirsanow <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTUyNzg5YWFiZDU5NjU4ZjY0ZTUyMDMwZWM4NTQ5YzY=</ref>, Thomas Sowell, Roger Clegg, and Ed Blum have all noted that illegal immigrants who are members of preferred minority groups are entitled to other benefits unavailable to the vast majority of American citizens.

===India===

''Main article: [[Reservation in India]]

Affirmative action has historically been implemented in India in the form of [[Reservation in India|reservation]] or quotas in government positions, employment and education for lower [[caste]]s and minorities. The first records of these policies are seen in the late 19th century in the princely states of Mysore in South India and Baroda and Kolhapur in western India. Reservations in government jobs were introduced in 1918 in Mysore in favour of a number of castes and communities that had little share in the administration. In another instance, upon petition from the Muslim community, the British government at the time made provisions in the Government of India acts of 1909 and 1919 granting Muslims share in the administration and other facilities. In the communal award of 1935, legislative seats were reserved for members of the Muslim, Sikh, Maratha, Parsi, Christian, European and Anglo-Indian communities. In addition seats were reserved for depressed classes within the Hindu community. The scheduled castes were given 8.5 reservation in central services and other facilities in 1942. In independent India, provision for reservation in legislature was made in the constitution until 1960, recently extended until 2010. Provision for public services was made at the same time with no time limit. More recently in 1990, the implementation of the [[Mandal commission]]s' recommendations have been in the social and political limelight. Despite widespread agitation (mostly among students), reservation for the backward classes were upheld to the extent of 27 per cent (this was in addition to the 22.5% already reserved for scheduled castes and tribes, bringing the total of 'open' seats to only 50%). [http://www.ambedkar.org/research/Bhagwandas.pdf]

There have been recent attempts to introduce it into the private job sector and for Muslims.

===Consultations===
Another, more indirect form of affirmative action works through "consultations", whereby institutions such as [[school]]s or health-care facilities are viewed as centred on the majority culture, and therefore consultation with other ethnic groups are specified as a remedy. This can cause accusations of double-standards, as in practice representatives of all ethnic groups ''except the majority group'' receive consultation on institutional workings. Proponents discount this as being irrelevant, as they claim consultation with the majority group is pointless, as the institution's management is centered on their culture anyway.

===Other countries===
*[[Belgium]]. The [[Flanders|Flemish]] government proposed in January 2006 a measure that will make some job opportunities available exclusively to immigrants, disabled and elderly people for the first three weeks. [http://www.hln.be/hln/cch/det/art_159838.html]
*[[Bosnia-Herzegovina]]. Women must represent at least 29% of all politicians.
*[[Brazil]]. Some Brazilian Universities (State or Federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and native Brazilians), the poor and the handicapped. There are also quotas for the disabled in the civil public services.
*[[China]]. The People's Republic allows non-Han ethnic groups (around 9% of the population) to be exempt from the [[One-child policy]], and there is a quota for minority representatives in the [[National Assembly]] in Beijing, as well as other realms of government.
*[[European Union]]. 2000/43/EU ([[29 June]] [[2000]]) concerns the application of the principle of equality without regard to race or ethnic origin (ABl. EU Number L 180 p 22), anti-racism directive, to be implemented in national law of the member states.
*[[Germany]]. Article 3 of the [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany|German constitution]] provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex or race. In recent years there has been a long public debate about whether to issue programs that would grant women a privileged access to jobs in order to fight discrimination. There were programs stating that if men and women had equal qualifications, women had to be preferred for a job. The Government agreed on the details of an anti-discrimination law (Antidiskriminierungsgesetz; ADG) in May 2006, that aims at improving the protection of minorities. The draft follows EU standards but has yet to pass the German Parliament, the [[Bundestag]]. According the EU-law it is an illegal situation, that Germany didn't protect the minorities with the Antidiskriminierungsgesetz until now.
*[[Greece]]. has quotas setting a lower limit for women participating in election lists of political parties for most of the election processes.
*[[Japan]]. Spot for universities as well as all the government position (including teachers) are determined by the entrance exam, which is extremely competitive at the top level. It is illegal to include sex, ethnicity or other social background (but not nationality) in criteria. However, there are informal policy to provide employment and long term welfare (which is usually not available to general public) to [[Burakumin]] at municipality level.
*[[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonia]]. Minorities, most notably Albanians, are allocated quotas for access to state universities, as well as in civil public services.
*[[Malaysia]]. The [[bumiputra]] laws are a form of affirmative action meant to provide more opportunity for the majority ethnic [[Malay people|Malay]] population versus the historical financial dominance of the [[Chinese Malaysian|Chinese]] and [[Indian Malaysian|Indian]] populations.
*[[New Zealand]]. Individuals of [[Māori]] or other [[Polynesia]]n descent are often afforded preferential access to university courses, and scholarships.
*[[Norway]]: All [[public company]] (ASA) boards with more than five members, must have at least 40 % women (can not be made up of more than 60% of one sex). This affects roughly 400 companies.
*[[Philippines]]. State universities implement a modified version of Affirmative Action. Secondary schools, both private and public schools, are each assigned a quota on how many students from that high school are accepted for admission, in addition to each student's score during the entrance examination. This was done to address the situation wherein a majority of the university school population was composed mostly of students who came from well-off families and private schools.
*[[Slovakia]]. The Constitutional Court declared in October 2005 that affirmative action i.e. 'providing advantages for people of an ethnic or racial minority group' as being against its Constitution. [http://euobserver.com/9/20123] This is seen as an anti-[[gipsy]] decision immediately following [[roma people|roma]] hunger riots, which protested curtailing of social aids in Slovakia.
*[[South Africa]]. The Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act aim to promote and achieve equality in the workplace (in South Africa termed "equity"), by not only advancing people from designated groups but also specifically disadvancing the others. By legal definition, the designated groups include all non-whites, females, people with disabilities, and people from rural areas. The term "black economic empowerment" is somewhat of a misnomer, therefore, because it covers empowerment of any members of the designated groups, regardless of race. It is quota-based, with specific required outcomes. By a relatively complex scoring system, which allows for some flexibility in the manner in which each company meets its legal commitments, each company is required to meet minimum requirements in terms of representation by previously disadvantaged groups. The matters covered include equity ownership, representation at employee and management level (up to board of director level), procurement from black-owned businesses and social investment programmes, amongst others.
*[[Southeast Asia]]. In countries such as [[Indonesia]], affirmative action programs give natives preference over [[Han Chinese]] who have immigrated into the country.
*[[Taiwan]] has an interesting point observe in the near future, where an increase of South-east Asian migrant workers and wives, might lead to social disparity in treatment. Second generation of Taiwanese-South Asian are starting to be a focal point to social opportunities in a purely Han Chinese society. In the past a source of social problem, was the tension between Taiwanese that were on the island before 1949, (Original Province People), and the Chinese that came to the island following the retreat of the Nationalist government, (Outer Province People). See [[February 28 Incident]]
*[[United Kingdom]]. Under the [[1998]] [[Good Friday Agreement]] the law requires that the [[Police Service of Northern Ireland]] recruit equal numbers of [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]]s and non Catholics.

==Disputes==

Critics and supporters disagree on the [[economics|economic]] effects of affirmative action. Others believe the topic has [[philosophy|philosophical]] or [[politics|political]] considerations.

===Miscellaneous===
* [[Race and intelligence]]
* [[Equality of opportunity vs equality of results]]
* [[Jewish quota]] (historically restricting number of Jews)
* [[Malaysian New Economic Policy]]
* [[Legacy preferences]]
* [[Reservation in India]]

==Notes==
<references />

==External links==
* [www.sterlingharwood.com [http://www.sterlingharwood.com] has about 20 quotes on affirmative action and discusses the pros and cons of affirmative action
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/ Affirmative Action] at the [http://plato.stanford.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

[[Category:Discrimination]]
[[Category:Politics and race]]
[[Category:Racism]]
[[Category:Social inequality]]
[[Category:Social justice]]
[[Category: Prejudice and discrimination]]
[[af:Regstellende aksie]]
[[de:Quotenregelung]]
[[es:Acción afirmativa]]
[[fr:Discrimination positive]]
[[he:העדפה מתקנת]]
[[hu:Pozitív diszkrimináció]]
[[nl:Rechtstellende actie]]
[[ja:積極的差別是正措置]]
[[pt:Ação afirmativa]]
[[fi:Positiivinen syrjintä]]
[[sv:Kvotering]]
[[ta:சீர்திருத்த செயலாக்கம்]]
[[Category:Anti-racism]]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

2006-08-26T04:15:24Z

71.74.209.82: Al-Andalus on White(people) reported by Psychohistorian

{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}

==Violations==

Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''.

===[[User:Zaparojdik]] reported by User:[[User:Clevelander|Clevelander]] (Result:Already Blocked)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on [[Turkic peoples]]. {{3RRV|Zaparojdik}}:

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&oldid=70945708 12:05, 21 August 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&oldid=70930413 09:49, 21 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&oldid=70962109 14:09, 21 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&oldid=70963011 14:16, 21 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&oldid=70964294 14:27, 21 August 2006]

Time report made: 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

This user has been unwilling to discuss changes to the article on the talk page and continously reverts both this article as well as the one on [[Pan-Turkism]]. He also labels users who do not agree with his point of view as "vandals" and states that "Turks should always battle with Kurds and Armenians". He proclaimed on the talk page in reference to a map: "THIS MAP IS NOT RIGHT AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" -- [[User:Clevelander|Clevelander]] 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Jkress613]] reported by User:[[User:Erikster|Erik]] (Result: 24 hrs)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on [[Star Trek XI]]. {{3RRV|Jkress613}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=70965759&oldid=70950621 07:38, August 21, 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=70992065&oldid=70968369 10:20, August 21, 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=71006961&oldid=70992512 11:32, August 21, 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=71008548&oldid=71008088 11:40, August 21, 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=71009678&oldid=71009276 11:45, August 21, 2006]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=71010980&oldid=71010629 1351, August 21, 2006]
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71015393 1417, August 21, 2006]
* 7th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71017041 1422, August 21, 2006]
* 8th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71018336 1430, August 21, 2006]
* 9th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71019288 1434, August 21, 2006]
* 10th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71020176 1439, August 21, 2006]
* 11th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71021563 1446, August 21, 2006]
* 12th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71023315 1453, August 21, 2006]
* 13th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71025122 1504, August 21, 2006]
* 14th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71027012 1511, August 21, 2006]
* 15th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71029003 1521, August 21, 2006]
* 16th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71029685 1524, August 21, 2006]
* 17th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71030648 1529, August 21, 2006]
* 18th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71031139 1531, August 21, 2006]
* 19th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_XI&diff=next&oldid=71031931 1537, August 21, 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jkress613&diff=71009178&oldid=71008316 11:43, August 21, 2006]

Time report made: 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:''' The user has reverted POV writing as well as misspellings into the film article more than three times, which is a 3RR violation.

:Setting phasers to "block for 24 hours". [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] 01:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:68.210.28.135|68.210.28.135]] reported by User:[[User:DickClarkMises|DickClarkMises]] (Result: No block)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Alexander Cockburn}}. {{3RRV|68.210.28.135}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Cockburn&oldid=70908266 23:58, 20 August 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Cockburn&diff=prev&oldid=70984119 10:40, 21 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Cockburn&diff=prev&oldid=70998433 11:51, 21 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Cockburn&diff=prev&oldid=71003302 12:14, 21 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Cockburn&diff=next&oldid=70998433 11:53, 21 August 2006 (See edit summary)]

Time report made: 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:''' I believe this amounts to a violation of the 3RR. Basically, the editor made an uncommented deletion of a block of text that discussed criticism of the article subject. Multiple editors reverted this deletion, complaining in edit summaries that it was unexplained. The anon editor finally decided to make some case for his position, but still ended up deleting this text block for the fourth time today. Please advise if I should take this to AN/I instead of here. Cheers, [[User:DickClarkMises|DickClarkMises]] 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:I would direct interested admins to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Cockburn&curid=294170&diff=71029756&oldid=71029415 diff], by which one can see that the editor about which I filed the report seems apologetic and even cooperative. I suspect that Wikipedia would probably be best served by letting this one ride. [[User:DickClarkMises|DickClarkMises]] 20:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for providing that diff. User seems genuinely apologetic, so I don't see what use a block would have. [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] 02:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Stanley011]] reported by User:[[User:Aren't I Obscure?|Aren't I Obscure?]] (Result: not blocked)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Golfers with most wins in men's major championships}}. {{3RRV|Stanley011}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golfers_with_most_wins_in_men%27s_major_championships&oldid=70858022 23:45, 20 August 2006;]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golfers_with_most_wins_in_men%27s_major_championships&diff=70870173&oldid=70869588 01:06, 21 August 2006 ]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golfers_with_most_wins_in_men%27s_major_championships&diff=70886358&oldid=70871144 02:57, 21 August 2006 ]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golfers_with_most_wins_in_men%27s_major_championships&diff=70969481&oldid=70959200 15:08, 21 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golfers_with_most_wins_in_men%27s_major_championships&diff=71016399&oldid=70976472 19:18, 21 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stanley011&diff=63204793&oldid=62057752 10:49, 11 July 2006] This specific comment is from a previous violation, but he has been blocked twice before for 3RR violation.

Time report made: 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
He refuses to actually discuss the concerns on the talk page, instead posting single comments and considering the matter "addressed". [[User:Aren't I Obscure?|Aren't I Obscure?]] 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::I certainly was not intending to violate the 3rr. Looking back on the times of the edits, I realize I made two of these edits about 13 hours apart, and so did not immediately recognize that they were within 24 hrs. I certainly will not do this again, and I am currently in deliberation with [[user:Aren't I Obscure?|Aren't I Obscure?]] on how we can work out our differences on this article. [[User:Stanley011|Stanley011]] 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
And of course, I have discussed all conerns, and continue to do so as an examination of the discussion page of the article will reveal. This user interprets disagreement as non-discussion. [[User:Stanley011|Stanley011]] 01:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

*The user does not seem to have done this intentionally. Next time though, you may get blocked anyway. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 05:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Comiclover420]] reported by User:[[User:Lil crazy thing|Lil crazy thing]] (Result: user warned)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Randy Orton}}. {{3RRV|Comiclover420}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Orton&oldid=71023150 19:51, 21 August 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Orton&diff=71011518&oldid=70999899 18:54, 21 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Orton&diff=71014543&oldid=71012511 19:08, 21 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Orton&diff=71018088&oldid=71015594 19:27, 21 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Orton&diff=71019118&oldid=71018523 19:32, 21 August 2006]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Orton&diff=71023150&oldid=71019699 19:35, 21 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randy_Orton&diff=71015594&oldid=71014543 19:14, 21 August 2006]

Time report made: 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
This is a clear violation of the rule, the user has been notified but has continued to revert, user has also been told where to go to see the discussion on why the list was removed but hasn't taken no notice of anything they have been told. User will continue to carry on unless action is taken. [[User:Lil crazy thing|Lil crazy thing]] 20:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

*The user has now been warned per [[WP:3RR|3RR]]. I am not sure if he took your notice as a serious notice, also, its been over a day since the incident (when I noticed this).'''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 05:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Bdean1963]] reported by User:[[User:Messhermit|Messhermit]] (Result: user warned)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Peru}}

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Danzig&oldid=70357720 03:47, 18 August 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peru&oldid=70952992 13:01, 21 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peru&oldid=70962027 14:09, 21 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peru&oldid=70963136 14:17, 21 August 2006]


Time report made: 09:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
* User started and keeps promoting racial, political and POV bias.
* This is not the first time, and I have already attempted to talk with him, leaving a comment in his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABdean1963&diff=70100150&oldid=67566053] with no results.
* I have keep on reverting the original article, but it seems that he is not willing to talk or discuss about this.
* Hope 3rr doesn't count on my case, I have only tried to prevent him to state a disruptive POV. [[User:Messhermit|Messhermit]] 14:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

*The user has not yet violated [[WP:3RR]] because there are not yet four reverts over the ''same'' content in 24 hours. However, I have warned the user for nearly breaching [[WP:3RR]]. And please use diffs, not revision links. Thanks. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 05:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Dposse]] reported by User:MrDarcy (Result: user warned)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Snakes on a Plane}}. {{3RRV|Dposse}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakes_on_a_Plane&oldid=70996106 17:40, 21 August 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakes_on_a_Plane&diff=prev&oldid=70996106 17:40, 21 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakes_on_a_Plane&diff=prev&oldid=70998491 17:51, 21 August 2006 ]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakes_on_a_Plane&diff=next&oldid=71000352 18:03, 21 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snakes_on_a_Plane&diff=71032954&oldid=71032324 20:40, 21 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dposse#Warning 20:18, 21 August 2006]

Time report made: 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
*[[User:Dposse]] and [[User:Guerillafilm]] have been engaging in an edit war all day. Guerillafilm may also be guilty of a 3RR violation.
*Dposse probably has five or six reverts to the page in the last 24 hours.
*Dposse has been using foul language in edit summaries towards Guerillafilm, and has been exhibiting [[WP:OWN|page ownership]] behavior.
*I'm reporting this because an anon user just edited the section to make it more concise and more neutral and dposse reverted again.

::And edit summaries like "For the love of snakes, please look at your own fucking talk page Guerillafilm!" aren't helping Dposse's case very much. [[User:Metros232|Metros232]] 20:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

* While all the comments about [[User_talk:Chocolateboy#Snakes on a Plane|Dposse]] and [[User:Guerillafilm|Guerillafilm]] above are true, I'm not convinced that the "anonymous" user is really anonymous. Writing in '''exactly''' the same (distinctive) style as Guerillafilm and several other contributors to the page/article is compatible with an [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet|alternative interpretation]]. See [[Talk:Snakes on a Plane#Slander]] for more details. [[User:Chocolateboy|chocolateboy]] 21:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:* Chocolate boy is accusing me of posting as an anonymous user, a sockpuppet. This is patently untrue. You can check my IP address. And I can guarantee you that the anonymous user who attempted to post a neutral compromise edit (that was then was vandalized by dposse) is not me.[[User:Guerillafilm|Guerillafilm]] 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:*How interesting it is that you only posted one side to this story. How about you post all the edits that [[User:Guerillafilm|Guerillafilm]] did? I am not the bad guy here. I did everything by the book. It is not my fault that [[User:Guerillafilm|Guerillafilm]] ignored attempts to settle events peacefully. [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 21:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::*The edit war is now over. The page was been fully protected. By the way, it says at the top of the page "Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned." [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 21:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Dposse, there's a warning on your talk page, posted at 20:18, 21 August 2006. You reverted the page again after that, hence my reporting of you for a 3RR violation. I suggest that you review [[WP:3RR]] to better understand the policy in question. | [[User:MrDarcy|Mr. Darcy]] [[User talk:MrDarcy|talk]] 21:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Again, go ahead and post all the times that [[User:Guerillafilm|Guerillafilm]] reverted the page. I was the one who tried to edit the page peacefully. [[User:Guerillafilm|Guerillafilm]] reverted the page so fast that i couldn't fix the page to make all parties happy. [[User:Dposse|dposse]] 21:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::*[[User:Dposse|dposse]]... other individuals' bad behavior doesn't justify your own bad behavior. Does the "Snakes on a Plane" Wikipedia page belong to you? Somebody please ban him. [[User:Dposse|dposse]] will not let anyone, other than himself, edit on that page. Basically we have to ask for his permission to edit the page. If he doesn't like our contribution, then he will ruthlessly break the rules to protect his own agenda on that article. I tried a couple of times to contribute meaningfully and then he vandalized my contribution and then he reverted the page anyways, more times than is allowed by wikipedia policy.[[User:24.9.70.47|24.9.70.47]] 12:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

*The user has now been warned per [[WP:3RR|3RR]]. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 05:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Setanta747 ]] reported by [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] (Result: user blocked)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Northern Ireland}}. {{3RRV|Setanta747}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&curid=21265&diff=70899571&oldid=70859209]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&curid=21265&diff=70925820&oldid=70922195]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&curid=21265&diff=71024949&oldid=70928325]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&curid=21265&diff=71042410&oldid=71026168]


Time report made: 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:''' User Setanta747 has already broken 3RR on this article twice in the last week. Well aware of policy, can someone investigate? [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 21:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

*Warned first violation, and banned on second violation. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 21:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
**Some anon ip (193.1.172.138) has just reverted the article, its not me. I am on my third count in 24 hours. I do not edit anonymously, only by [[User:Djegan|this account]]. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 21:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It says here "(Result: user blocked)" but this is not the case. They are not blocked. They have reverted the article three times today. Is their an admin in the house? [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 05:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:It says the result is the user is blocked, but he is not! Have I missed somthing??? [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 21:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[[User:Voice_of_All|Voice of All]] added the "user blocked" result above but never blocked.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=71324469&oldid=71324293]
Give me a second to review the case. [[User:Prodego|''Prodego'']] [[User talk:Prodego|talk]] 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:OK the block would have expired by now anyway, so I am not going to block, but a block should have been made. [[User:Prodego|''Prodego'']] [[User talk:Prodego|talk]] 21:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks. Just wanted to clarify where we stand on the issue rather than anything else. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Djegan]] reported by User:[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] (Result: user warned)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Northern Ireland}}. {{3RRV|Djegan}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&diff=70922195&oldid=70899571 09:19, 21 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&diff=70928325&oldid=70925820 10:29, 21 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&diff=71026168&oldid=71024949 21:06, 21 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&diff=71044283&oldid=71042410 22:41, 21 August 2006] (see comments)


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://WarningDiff DiffTime]

Time report made: 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:''' User Djegan has already broken 3RR on this article twice in the last week. Well aware of policy (as can be seen by the fact that he has also reported myself), can someone investigate? I notice he has claimed an anonymous IP is responsible for the last revert, though I obviously cannot be sure: this user has recruited help from other editors in an edit war against me, and is very obviously 'playing the game' with regard to the 3RR rule.

I remind that the 3RR Rule states: '''If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.'''

I further note that I have tried to come to a compromise on several occasions - particularly on my last '''edit''', which might be regarded as an expansion or clarification rather then merely a simple revert. It was certainly an effort to reach consensus.

Djegan has asked for citations for my edits. I supplied them, yet this still is apparently not good enough for him --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'''This nomination is in bad faith and based on incorrect information...'''

*'''Comment''' As I have stated on [[talk:Northern Ireland]] and above that '''fourth edit''' that is cited here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Ireland&diff=71044283&oldid=71042410 22:41, 21 August 2006] is '''not mine'''. Nor have I asked for that anon editor to revert it for me. That anon editor ({{ipvandal|193.1.172.138}}) has been harassing several editors, including myself, for some time. I only reverted this article three times today, that I contend. The anon editor is located in Ireland (do a trace), I live outside Ireland. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

**'''Evidence''' that I am not editing anonymously as 193.1.172.138 (and did not break 3RR theirfore) 
***[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bus%C3%A1ras&action=history why would I revert myself?]
***[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=prev&oldid=68866801 why would I make personal attacks on myself?]
***[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28Ireland-related_articles%29&diff=prev&oldid=66676427 ...and again]
***[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28Ireland-related_articles%29&diff=prev&oldid=66156724 ...and again]
***[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=prev&oldid=64930520 ...and again]

In summary I do not edit by anon and do not revert war with myself. I think that Mals nomination is in bad faith as I already stated on [[talk:Northern Ireland]] that I did not edit anonymously. He should of made it clear above that three reverts are under a user account and a fourth under an ip address. Additionally he states that I broke 3RR before, this is incorrect. Let him cite the occurences, its clear from [[User_talk:Setanta747#User_notice:_temporary_3RR_blocl|his talk page]] that he does no understand 3RR. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

*** '''Response''' to evidence regarding 4th revert:

Fair enough. Though I have not investigated your evidence, I will take you on face value Djegan. I was going to remove the '4th revert', though I thought perhaps it should be kept so that Admins can see exactly what we have been talking about here. I have put a note after it instead.

You are, however, still apparently guilty of breaking the 3RR rule (my opinion). --[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 22:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

*3RR violation occures on the fourth revert, not the third. The "fourth revert" is not actually me. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

* '''The Three Revert Rule:'''

Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action. Conversely, just because someone has ''not'' violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day.

''Quoted from [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]]'': 

: The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours. If you find you have reverted more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem and you should try [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]], starting with the article's talk page.
--[[User:Setanta747|Mal]] 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

*Actually I am not the only person who reverted the article. Indeed the consenus was with the version I reverted to. If we are going to use WP:3RR - even when its not technically been broken - as a stick to overide the policies [[WP:VERIFY]] and [[WP:NOR]] ('''official policies''' that must be meet); then its time for people to quit wikipedia, never mind temporary blocks. All I have insisted on is that WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR be adhered to on the disputed article. I have '''never''' broken WP:3RR, because I respect the policies; I do not "game" them either. [[User:Djegan|Djegan]] 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

*The user has now been warned per [[WP:3RR|3RR]]. He should now no the consequences. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 05:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:203.59.164.116|203.59.164.116]] reported by User:[[User:SneakyTodd|Todd]] (Result: user warned)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Scorpio (astrology)}}. {{3RRV|203.59.164.116}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scorpio_%28astrology%29&diff=prev&oldid=70945335 05:02, 21 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scorpio_%28astrology%29&diff=prev&oldid=70947255 05:18, 21 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scorpio_%28astrology%29&diff=prev&oldid=70948322 05:26, 21 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scorpio_%28astrology%29&diff=prev&oldid=70948776 05:30, 21 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* N/A

Time report made: 22:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

*The user has now been warned for vandalism. Next time should be a block. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:132.241.246.111]] reported by User:[[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] (Result: user blocked)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|United_States_Senate_elections%2C_2006}}. {{3RRV|132.241.246.111}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Senate_elections%2C_2006&oldid=71016424 12:18, 21 August 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Senate_elections%2C_2006&diff=71041758&oldid=71017909 14:27, 21 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Senate_elections%2C_2006&diff=71042191&oldid=71041860 14:29, 21 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Senate_elections%2C_2006&diff=71057331&oldid=71044429 15:54, 21 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Senate_elections%2C_2006&diff=71069674&oldid=71057624 17:11, 21 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:132.241.246.111&diff=71059201&oldid=71045167 16:06, 21 August 2006]

Time report made: 03:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

The edit the user made (and repeatedly reinserted after other editors removed it) was "Even <nowiki>[Jim]</nowiki> Talent's supporters think he's going to loose ''(sic)''". A glance at the user's [[User_talk:132.241.246.111|talk page]] indicates that a) he's a suspected sock puppet, and b) he has a serious problem adhering to [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] on political topics. An article like [[United States Senate elections, 2006]] is by nature in danger of being contaminated by POV material, and it's not good for an editor who cannot control his biases to be unable to resist infecting such articles. This editor has been repeatedly warned, and has not listened. [[User:VoiceOfReason|VoiceOfReason]] 03:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 05:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:DTC]] reported by User:[[User:Good Intentions|Marinus]] (Result:)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Anarchism}}. {{3RRV|DTC}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&oldid=71013820 8h05 22/8]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=71105012&oldid=71104440 17h26]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=71107260&oldid=71106854 17h46]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=71110122&oldid=71108335 18h10]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&diff=71112848&oldid=71112431 18h37]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* No, user was warned on [[Talk:Anarchism#Please_verify_source|article talk page]], denied that 3RR was violated, warned again, again remained unrepentant.

Time report made: 06:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
[[Anarchism#Anarcho-capitalism]] is the problem area. Part of the long-standing edit-war between proponents of anarcho-capitalism versus everybody else. I proposed an agreement, to which the problem user seemed to agree but he keeps changing content in line with the proposal to content which denies that the view he edits in is that of a minority. This is a strange claim, against the grain of common knowledge and scholarship on the field, as well as pages upon pages of debate on the Talk page. Also, the problem user is suspected by some of being a sock puppet. --[[User:Good Intentions|Marinus]] 06:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No 3RR violation from me. My edits were modifications and trying to conform to sources. On the other hand, "Good Intentions" has been edit warring and reverting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&action=history] It make no sense that he's accusing me of 3RR when he's beeng doing reverts and I haven't done any. The sockpuppet tag is just a method of harrassment. [[User:DTC|DTC]] 07:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:DTC]] reported by User:[[User:Good Intentions|Marinus]] (Result:)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="width: auto;"
|-
| [[Image:Nuvola apps kdmconfig.png|50px| ]]
| '''It is suspected that this user might be a [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppet]] or impersonator of [[User:RJII|RJII]]'''. Please refer to {{{2|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DTC contribution history matching RJII's edits and style]}}} for evidence. See [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|page=User:{{PAGENAMEE}}}} block log] and [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~pgk/autoblock.php?autoblock=&blocker=&blockee={{urlencode:{{PAGENAME}}}}&time=0&submit=Submit+Query current autoblocks].
|}

DTC is whoever you want him to be. [[User:DTC|DTC]] 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC). {{3RRV|DTC}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DTC&oldid=70073314 8h21 17/8]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DTC&diff=71014990&oldid=70323087 8h11 22/8]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DTC&diff=71111214&oldid=71108006 18h21]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DTC&diff=71118009&oldid=71117686 19h28]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DTC&diff=71121993&oldid=71121847 20h09]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* N/A

Time report made: 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:''' User removes sock-puppet suspicion tag from user page, though there are three editors who are willing to suspect him and independently tag him as such. --[[User:Good Intentions|Marinus]] 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No 3RR violation from me. My edits were modifications and trying to conform to sources. On the other hand, "Good Intentions" has been edit warring and reverting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism&action=history] It make no sense that he's accusing me of 3RR when he's beeng doing reverts and I haven't done any. [[User:DTC|DTC]] 07:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Oh I see, he tried to trap me with the sockpuppet tag thing. That tag amounts to vandalism by now. It's been up for a long time and he hasn't been able to prove that I am this mysterious person I am supposed to be. [[User:DTC|DTC]] 07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
'''Comment''' I've come to regret this report - it is his user-space, after all. What I hoped to accomplish was highlight this user's aggressiveness in advancing his views contrary to (attempted) consensus. --[[User:Good Intentions|Marinus]] 11:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Comanche cph]] reported by User:CharlotteWebb (Result:blocked for 1 month)===
Three revert rule violation on [[Viking]]. [[User:Comanche_cph|Comanche_cph]] ([[User talk:Comanche_cph|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Comanche_cph|contribs]] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=move&user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:Comanche_cph}}}}}} page moves] • [[Special:Blockip/{{ucfirst:Comanche_cph}}|block user]] • [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=block&page=User:{{urlencode:Comanche_cph}}}} block log]):
Five times in less than an hour, Comanche inserted some unsourced nonsense about mushrooms.

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viking&diff=71159137&oldid=71083332 12:48, August 22, 2006]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viking&diff=71161330&oldid=71161182 13:04, August 22, 2006]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viking&diff=71164093&oldid=71162141 13:22, August 22, 2006]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viking&diff=71165741&oldid=71164800 13:33, August 22, 2006]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viking&diff=71167609&oldid=71165931 13:46, August 22, 2006]

User has previously been blocked for edit warring on several occasions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Comanche_cph]. I'm not sure any new warnings are requisite.

Time report made: 14:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:User has subsequently been blocked for other issues, notably civility. Sorry I missed this, I would have included it in my message to the user about the block. Note that his comments to CharlotteWebb [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CharlotteWebb&diff=prev&oldid=71165054 here] are cited as part of the block. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 18:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Pfahlstrom]] reported by User:[[User:Wiki-Ed|Wiki-Ed]] (Result:User warned)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Aluminium}}. {{3RRV|Pfahlstrom}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aluminium&diff=71173549&oldid=71165457]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aluminium&diff=71083972&oldid=71033751]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aluminium&diff=71152084&oldid=71141289]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aluminium&diff=71161137&oldid=71159661]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aluminium&diff=71165457&oldid=71161750]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pfahlstrom&diff=71162738&oldid=51344580] by [[User:Beetstra]].

Time report made: 14:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:''' User keeps reverting page to include citation-needed tags for verified information (as per talk page). This encourages another user to vandalise the article by blanking the relevant sections altogether.
*'''Comments:''' First off, I am aware of 3RR. I reverted based on my belief that WP-Edit's reverts of my citationneeded tag amounts to obvious vandalism. As explained on the talk page, the claim was not cited even though WP-Edit believes it was covered in the next paragraph, and WP-Edit himself cautions another user for the same thing: "In the first paragraph you removed the [citation needed] tag for an unproven statement". Currently a citation has been added by Edgar181, but I am unconvinced that its specificity is of the necessary level, as explained on the Talk page. However, that is neither here nor there, as this is about my reverts: I believe I was reverting obvious vandalism, and it didn't even concern a change to the substance of the article, merely a citationneeded tag I believe necessary in order to encourage someone to find a good source per [[WP:CITE]]; I myself did look for sources but have not yet found sources to satisfy the entirety of the statement. —[[User:Pfahlstrom|pfahlstrom]] 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::I just want to say that as to whether I violated the letter or spirit of 3RR, I will not question the determination of whichever admin decides how to answer this complaint and will be less knee-jerk in the future. —[[User:Pfahlstrom|pfahlstrom]] 02:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm not inclined to press this, irritating though it was. It might have been an accidental (?) violation of the letter of the rule, but I think Pfalstrom was acting in good faith. [[User:Wiki-Ed|Wiki-Ed]] 14:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::::This is just barely a 3RR violation (another hour ont he 4th edit wouldn't have qualified it.) Let this be your only warning for next time. Next time, get friends who agree with you, as Wiki-Ed did. --'''[[User:Zsinj|Zsinj]]'''[[User Talk:Zsinj|Talk]] 02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] reported by User:[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] (Result:2rr, not three...no block)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Capitalism}}. {{3RRV|Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&oldid=71090413 02:33, 22 August 2006 ]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71114282&oldid=71113708 05:51, 22 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71115945&oldid=71114592 06:08, 22 August 2006e]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71182925&oldid=71155717 15:22, 22 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71192168&oldid=71191602 16:17, 22 August 2006]


'''Comments:''' Aware of the 3RR rule, see the block log.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comment:''' Notice that the "4th revert" is a completely unrelated edit to the first three (not even the same section of the article). After the first removal of material unrelated to the article, inserted by Ultramarine, I provided a detailed explanation on the talk page for why it was not relevant. She restored the non-relevant graph three times without providing any explanation of its alleged connection to the article in talk. However, rather than revert a fourth time, I sought the input from an administrator about Ultramarine's behavior in inserting irrelevant (and somewhat disruptive) material). [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]×[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]] 18:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
:4 reverts. If we are going to have a content discussion here, then I will note that you are deleting well-sourced relevant material, as discussed on the talk page.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:Note also that no notification or discussion was made by Ultramarine (or anyone) prior to filing this false report. [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]×[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]] 04:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
::You are well aware of the 3RR rule as can be seen in your block log. DO NOT delete my comments here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=71314813&oldid=71314658].[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 04:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Results: I only see a total of three reverts, not four. While [[WP:3RR]] isn't an entitlement to make 3 reverts a day, it appears the content is a dispute about a graph which has not gained consensus for inclusion on the article talk page anyway.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 05:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
:There are four reverts, the last was a revert of an added dispute template, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71191602&oldid=71191412], without discussion.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 05:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::The forth revert was a different unrelated edit [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 11:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:JB196]] reported by User:-- [[User:3bulletproof16]] (Result: No block)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|World Wrestling Entertainment}}. {{3RRV|JB196}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&diff=71096399&oldid=71086197 20:17, August 21, 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&diff=71102074&oldid=71097572 21:02, August 21, 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&diff=71104919&oldid=71102774 21:25, August 21, 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&diff=71108172&oldid=71106853 21:54, August 21, 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&diff=71172175&oldid=71108757 07:16, August 22, 2006]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&diff=71196357&oldid=71194166 09:43, August 22, 2006]
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment&diff=71198122&oldid=71197248 09:54, August 22, 2006]

Time report made: 17:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:''' User is re-adding non-notable links that can easily be found elsewhere in problem article. Has been told to discuss the addition of these unnecessary links on the article's talk page, though he has shown no intention of a discussion as proven by his constant reversions. -- [[User:3bulletproof16|'''3''']]''':'''[[User talk:3bulletproof16|'''16''']] 17:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

:User doesn't appear to have been informed of the 3RR. No block. [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Bertrand Meyer]] reported by User:[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] (Result: user blocked)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Eiffel programming language}}. {{3RRV|Bertrand_Meyer}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eiffel_programming_language&oldid=71182714]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eiffel_programming_language&diff=71192455&oldid=71186284]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eiffel_programming_language&diff=71209178&oldid=71192829]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eiffel_programming_language&diff=71215512&oldid=71209742]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eiffel_programming_language&diff=71221409&oldid=71219817]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABertrand_Meyer&diff=71216747&oldid=71211384]

Time report made: 19:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

This user is Dr. Bertrand Meyer editing the page on the Eiffel programming language, which he invented. As a recognized expert in his field but new to Wikipedia he does not understand Wikipedia rules and believes he can impose his own. In this particular case he is trying to retroactively assert copyright over material he has already entered into Wikipedia so that he can remove it.

*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 07:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Petaholmes]] (Result:No violation)===
On the page for [[Randall James Bayer]], has three times in 24-hours removed the list of his journal articles. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randall_James_Bayer&action=history history]. This is a violation of [[Wikipedia:3RR]]. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 04:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

*I removed the list for reasons described on the talk page. I reverted the article twice there after.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 04:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A total of three. Deletion counts as a revert.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randall_James_Bayer&diff=prev&oldid=71284918 Revert 1]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randall_James_Bayer&diff=prev&oldid=71292166 Revert 2]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randall_James_Bayer&diff=71294134&oldid=71293686 Revert 3]

**Nonsense, also you don't break the rule until you do more that 3 reverts.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 04:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

***Your "reasons" are irrelevant. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 04:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
****I really don't know what you are trying to achive here, I altered the aritcle so it was more in line with what is typical on Wikipedia. I also did not break the 3RR.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 04:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
*****The articles were added by consensus. You removed them with no consensus. [[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] 04:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
:There are only three reverts here. [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 04:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

*The user has not yet violated [[WP:3RR]] because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours nor is there any severely disruptive behavoir. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 22:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:AFRIDIA]] reported by User:[[User:Feebtlas|Feebtlas]] (Result: 24 hours)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Pakistani cricket team}}. {{3RRV|AFRIDIA}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistani_cricket_team&diff=71119451&oldid=71118864]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistani_cricket_team&diff=prev&oldid=71228422]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistani_cricket_team&diff=prev&oldid=71335389]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistani_cricket_team&diff=prev&oldid=71370299]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistani_cricket_team&diff=prev&oldid=71391100]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AFRIDIA&diff=prev&oldid=71382207 #1]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AFRIDIA&diff=prev&oldid=71391835 #2]

Time report made: 15:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 22:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] reported by User:[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] (Result: NO BLOCK)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Capitalism}}. {{3RRV|Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters}}:

'''Note''': This is a duplicate of the above false and rejected 3RR report by same user, using same diffs. The alleged 4th and 5th reverts listed are unrelated edits to different sections of the article. The first three are the same ones reported above, and I have made '''zero''' deletions of the inappropriate chart since 15:22, 22 August 2006 (though other editors have removed it since then). The diffs listed below Ultramarine's comment are all either identical to the diffs listed above, or diffs of non-consecutive edits (that also don't happen to have anything to do with the graph at question).[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]×[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]] 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::As stated below, you have continued reverting after that report.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 20:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&oldid=71090413 02:33, 22 August 2006 ]
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71114282&oldid=71113708 05:51, 22 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71115945&oldid=71114592 06:08, 22 August 2006e]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71182925&oldid=71155717 15:22, 22 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71192168&oldid=71191602 16:17, 22 August 2006] - ''
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71325476&oldid=71324136 05:43, 23 August 2006]

'''Comments:''' Aware of the 3RR rule, see the block log. I have reported the 4 first revert previously above but the 4th was considered dusbious. Howver, he has now made a 5th revert. This shows how he reverts to a prior version and deletes added text:

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71114282&oldid=71090413]
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71115945&oldid=71114282]
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71182925&oldid=71115945] (here is a word added but he still reverts the added graph, as he states in the edit summary)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71192168&oldid=71191412]
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71325476&oldid=71314023]
[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 21:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
:DO NOT edit my comments Lulu.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
::Ultramarine...I see a content dispute and some edit warring but not a breach of 3RR...I'll warn Lulu to be careful.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Edipedia]] reported by User:[[User:HongQiGong|HongQiGong]] (Result: 24 hours)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Overseas Chinese}}. {{3RRV|Edipedia}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overseas_Chinese&oldid=71402067 11:56, 23 August 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overseas_Chinese&diff=71402446&oldid=71402067 11:58, 23 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overseas_Chinese&diff=71405569&oldid=71403840 12:15, 23 August 2006e]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overseas_Chinese&diff=71409898&oldid=71407979 12:38, 23 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overseas_Chinese&diff=71410523&oldid=71410257 12:42, 23 August 2006]


'''Comments:''' User had been warned on previous occasions before: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edipedia&diff=71044994&oldid=70605430], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edipedia&diff=71189157&oldid=71044994]. And he has a habit of removing warnings on his Talk page. This is the most recent warning he received: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edipedia&diff=71410182&oldid=71218964].

*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 22:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Dy-no-miite]] (Result: user warned)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Robert Spencer}}. {{3RRV|Dy-no-miite}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Spencer&diff=71299772&oldid=71299188 02:32, 23 August 2006] by another user

* 1st revert by Dy-no-miite: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Spencer&diff=71301841&oldid=71299772 02:46, 23 August 2006]
* 2nd revert by Dy-no-miite: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Spencer&diff=next&oldid=71302334 02:58, 23 August 2006]
* 3rd revert by Dy-no-miite: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Spencer&diff=next&oldid=71304234 12:38, 23 August 2006]
* 4th revert by Dy-no-miite: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Spencer&diff=next&oldid=71346080 13:04, 23 August 2006]


'''Comments:''' 3RR violation on the introduction.

*The user has now been warned per [[WP:3RR|3RR]] not to let this happen again. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Ultramarine]] reported by User:[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]×[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]] (Result:No block)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Capitalism}}. {{3RRV|Ultramarine}}:

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&oldid=71111519]
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=71111519&oldid=71090413]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=next&oldid=71111519]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=next&oldid=71114282]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=next&oldid=71115945]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=next&oldid=71192168]
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitalism&diff=next&oldid=71395776]

Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUltramarine&diff=71451612&oldid=71105641]

Time report made: 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:''' Editor repeatedly adds irrelevant graph to article, despite 3RR warning and consensus of talk page against its inclusion. The latest reversion follows two false reports, above and using same diffs, of 3RR against me for removing the same original research material (Ultramarine reverts multiple editors for its inclusion, and refuses to present any argument for its relevance on talk; only that she believes it is "interesting"). [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]×[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]
:None of this is close to 3 reverts in 24 hours. The report is deliberately misleading, stating that the first addition of the graph is both the previous version and a revert at the same time (and concealing this by not giving time stamps) and stating that minor corrections of my own the text, with no one else editing between my edits, is reverting!!! The rest is also false, I have discussed the issue numerous times on the talk page. On the other hand, you have reverted 5 times in 24 hours as noted above.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 20:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
::That's it...I'll protect the page and you two can hash it out on the talk page.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:RevolverOcelotX]] reported by User:[[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] (Result: user warned)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Japanese war crimes}}. {{3RRV|RevolverOcelotX}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_war_crimes&oldid=69360257 10:15, 13 August 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_war_crimes&oldid=71437890 20:05, 23 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_war_crimes&oldid=71459131 22:00, 23 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_war_crimes&oldid=71459454 22:02, 23 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_war_crimes&oldid=71460277 22:06, 23 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RevolverOcelotX&oldid=71459998 22:05, 23 August 2006]

Time report made: 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

Although the user didn't revert to the exact version listed above, the content he reverted was from that period. So he was effectively reverting. [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] 21:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:The first edit was NOT revert. The contribution I added was clearly NOT present in "Previous version reverted" shown above. [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] reverted my contribution first and both of us at this time only made 3 reverts. --[[User:RevolverOcelotX|RevolverOcelotX]] 21:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::Your first edit was a revert because you were re-inserting material from that edit. There were only minor changes in the mean-time. [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::There is no evidence that my first edit was "re-inserting material from that edit". Read the previous version above. It is clearly not a revert. [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] is using this as a rather sneaky way to attempt to gain leverage in a content dispute. --[[User:RevolverOcelotX|RevolverOcelotX]] 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Of course you were - the changes that had been made were minimal. You broke the rules so they get applied to you, just as they've been applied to me in the past. [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] 21:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Please read previous version here, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_war_crimes&oldid=69360257 10:15, 13 August 2006]. There is nothing in my first edit that indicate it as a revert to that previous version, therefore it is not a revert. --[[User:RevolverOcelotX|RevolverOcelotX]] 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about this. I got confused and thought I had removed that article link only recently. Please close this report. [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

*The user has now been warned per [[WP:3RR|3RR]] not to let this happen again. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:FoxyProxy]] reported by User:[[User:Palffy|Palffy]] (Result: 24 hours)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Germany_national_football_team}}. {{3RRV|FoxyProxy}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&diff=69779059&oldid=69714220]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&diff=70009597&oldid=69991764 09:19, August 16, 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&diff=70026291&oldid=70019327 11:01, August 16, 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&diff=70111597&oldid=70091975 18:37, August 16, 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&diff=70186540&oldid=70167023 03:55, August 17, 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kwame_Nkrumah&oldid=68837429] - The 3RR warning was applied on [[User: Kwame Nkrumah]]'s page (see explanation below).

Time report made: 21:45, August 23, 2006 (UTC)

Comments: Please see additional recent 3RR violations [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Kwame_Nkrumah_reported_by_User:Palffy_.28Result:40_hours.29 here]. I have filed a checkuser request, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/FoxyProxy] to determine for certain whether the person who has been reverting Germany National Football Team is the same person. [[User: Palffy|Palffy]] 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

*I have blocked the user for 24 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 22:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:66.38.180.253]] reported by User:[[User:ST47|ST47]] (Result: 48 hours)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|User:RSudarshan}}. {{3RRV|66.38.180.253}}:

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RSudarshan&oldid=71163685]
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RSudarshan&diff=next&oldid=70987610]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RSudarshan&diff=next&oldid=71274845]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RSudarshan&diff=next&oldid=71464421]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RSudarshan&diff=next&oldid=71464811]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RSudarshan&diff=next&oldid=71466631]
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RSudarshan&diff=next&oldid=71472747]
* 7th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RSudarshan&diff=next&oldid=71476257]

Time report made: 22:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

*I have blocked the user for 48 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 01:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:1892 Fitch Dude]] reported by User:[[User:Tarentum|Tarentum]] (Result:No block)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Germany national football team}}. {{3RRV|1892_Fitch_Dude}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&oldid=70239816 17:23, 17 August 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&diff=70274928&oldid=70239816 20:46, 17 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&diff=70348934&oldid=70276928 04:37, 18 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&diff=70518082&oldid=70509765 04:06, 19 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&diff=70612823&oldid=70580584 19:29, 19 August 2006]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&diff=70801871&oldid=70782424 20:27, 20 August 2006]
* 6th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany_national_football_team&diff=70913779&oldid=70845829 1892 Fitch Dude]


Time report made: 23:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
No block. Not only was this report made 3 days after the reverts, but this is nowhere near four in 24 hours. If you want help in a low-intensity edit war, you may like to try [[WP:RfC|Requests for comment]] instead. [[User:Robdurbar|Robdurbar]] 06:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Kwame Nkrumah]] reported by User:[[User:Ryulong|Ryūlóng]] (Result: 5 days (by Blnguyen))===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on Several templates, claiming that Ukrainian copyright law is superceded by American copyright laws because images are released as fair use per Ukrainian laws. Here is an example at [[Template:FC Chornomorets Odessa]]. He has been blocked for 3RR prior elsewhere. {{3RRV|Kwame Nkrumah}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FC_Chornomorets_Odessa&diff=71485697&oldid=71462878]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FC_Chornomorets_Odessa&diff=71494021&oldid=71490901]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FC_Chornomorets_Odessa&diff=71494169&oldid=71494050]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FC_Chornomorets_Odessa&diff=71495354&oldid=71494657]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FC_Chornomorets_Odessa&diff=71497738&oldid=71495470]


Time report made: 00:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
:Also the same way around: Ryulong reverting 4 times the same article. (You could at least wait to end the discussion, before reverting)--[[User:Kwame Nkrumah|Kwame Nkrumah]] 00:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
::I added a link to the 5th revert as well. User is also a suspected puppeteer of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:FoxyProxy_reported_by_User:Palffy_.28Result:_24_hours.29 person] recently blocked by breaking a 3RR rule, if once he is officially determined to be so, Kwame will have broken the 3RR rule about 16 times. User has also been previously blocked for 3RR 3 times [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Kwame_Nkrumah_reported_by_User:Palffy_.28Result:40_hours.29] and has an outstanding checkuser request [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/FoxyProxy here]. --[[User: Palffy|Palffy]] 00:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
:::This seems to be a simple misunderstanding of copyright law, so I don't think a block would be appropriate here, though I am looking for confirmation as to whether or not the Ukranian law applies to Wikipedia, as it's based in Florida. [[User:Cowman109|Cowman109]][[User talk:Cowman109|Talk]] 01:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Cowman, I know that you are a VERY conservative administrator, but you have to admit that this is not just a "simple misunderstanding". This has really gone on long enough---it is ridiculous just how much attention this one person is getting from a whole lot of people here on WP. And I know you have looked into this matter into great detail, so you should know just about everything that has happened by now. This is not a simple distraction, this is a part of someone running Wikipedia, while you and the rest of the administrators nanny this person by giving him warnings, reprieve after reprieve, blocks, more reprieves etc. I'm certain that I can formally petion a list of 15-20 unique WPs (if not more) who would agree that this user is not fit for editing the WP and..I cannot imagine that you and the other admins have not seen the same over the time you've known Kwame and his sockpuppets. --[[User: Palffy|Palffy]] 02:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a block of some significant duration, should one be handed out, or would consider one myself. This user has exhibited a rather cavalier attitude to the counsel given him, and his current user page could be viewed as giving the appearance of trolling. He's been warned of his behaviour in the past. I highly doubt, with all due respect to Cowman109, that this user is simply misinformed, he has a tendency to apparently wikilawyer about anything and everything at the slightest provocation. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:Extended to 5 days, given previous stuff. '''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[User talk:Blnguyen|rant-line]] 04:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::There's some new information with the user at hand, please read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kwame_Nkrumah#Kwame_Nkrumah here]. --[[User: Palffy|Palffy]] 07:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Hardouin]] reported by User:[[User:ThePromenader|ThePromenader]] (Result:48 hours)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Paris}}. {{3RRV|Hardouin}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris&oldid=71438091 2006-08-23T21:06:50]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris&diff=71475070&oldid=71470374 2006-08-24T00:29:08]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris&diff=71479718&oldid=71478128 2006-08-24T00:55:40]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris&diff=71485357&oldid=71483375 2006-08-24T01:31:21]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris&diff=71491069&oldid=71489551 2006-08-24T02:06:37]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://WarningDiff DiffTime]

Time report made: 00:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
Repeat offender. Fully aware that he is beaking the [[WP:3RR]] rule. Simply reverts any edit not to his taste without the slightest attempt at discussion beforehand. Always the protagonist in any revert war, as a look at this article's (as well as others) page history will show.

:I reverted factually wrong statements (namely, that there existed no municipality of Paris before the French Revolution, which is proven wrong by evidence). You can see the evidence at [[Talk:Paris#Municipality bis]]. I note that another user on the talk page expressed doubt at Promenader's statement that the municipality of Paris didn't exist, yet Promenader reverted the article back to his version of history. Does 3RR applies when an editor adds factually wrongs information to an article? I'd like also to let admins know that Promenader himself reverted the article 4 times tonight. Four times in a row he deleted a sentence stating that the provost of the merchants was shot by the crowd on 14 July 1789, an historical event nobody is doubting. That sentence was added to the article on 15 August 2006 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris&diff=69807210&oldid=69789877]). Tonight the Promenader deleted this sentence 4 times, thus making 4 reverts to the state of the article as it existed before 15 August 2006. Here are the four reverts where you can see the sentence disappearing each time: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris&diff=71470374&oldid=71438091], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris&diff=71478128&oldid=71476328], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris&diff=71483375&oldid=71479718], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris&diff=71489551&oldid=71485357]. Personally I would have filed no complaint for that, but since Promenader filed a complaint against me, I think it's fair that his four reverts be examined too. [[User:Hardouin|Hardouin]] 01:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
:: The 'fact' that [[User:Hardouin|Hardouin]] indicates is only his own interpretation thereof, and even this is only ''one'' of the passges he reverted to. As for the other, there was even a discussion open on this subject, but the above refused to follow it, and the corrections I intended were indicated well beforehand both on the [[Talk:Paris|Paris talk page]] and [[User:Hardouin|Hardouin]]'s [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hardouin#Paris_municipality.2C_Categorical_nonsense own talk page]. Please note the dates on both. After over a week of no further discussion, yet only minutes after the cnanges in question were made, [[User:Hardouin|Hardouin]] pounced and reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. As always. [[User:ThePromenader|thepromenader]] 01:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
:: PS: I can hardly call [[good faith]] the fact that my first edit, whose intent I mentioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hardouin#Paris_municipality.2C_Categorical_nonsense well beforehand], was called a revert. What's more, one of the phrases I was trying to correct was my own contribution. [[User:ThePromenader|thepromenader]] 02:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, no matter how 'right' you think you are, or 'wrong' the other editor appears to you, there is no justification for breaking the three revert rule. As you have been blocked on this article for breaking the rule numerous times before, I think a 48 hour block is appropriate. [[User:Robdurbar|Robdurbar]] 06:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
: Hardouin, again, my edit was hardly a revert: First off, the edit you reverted is quite unlike its original form, and the rest was a correction outlined more than a week beforehand. You chose not to answer, so I corrected. The first revert was yours, as always. [[User:ThePromenader|thepromenader]] 12:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

===anonymous block beginging with 87.113.81.* reported by User:[[User:Ikanreed|i kan reed]]===
They seem to be repeatedly adding "desirable leafy green" to the description of the article on [[Teddington]] dozens of examples can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teddington&curid=95418&action=history here]. The user may have a comercial interest in the change, but [[WP:AGF]] prevents that from being assumed. Despite changes by the rest of the regular editors of the page explaining the NPOV policy, it seems as though the IP block has not stopped making the same change for many days. This is not one of my main articles but reverting it has begun to become a problem for me as well. If someone could address the situation appropriatly, that'd help, thanks. [[User:Ikanreed|i kan reed]] 02:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
*:You're going to need to report this in the appropriate format. [[User:Alphachimp|'''alpha''''''Chimp''']] [[User talk:Alphachimp|'''laudare''']] 23:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Ryulong]] reported by User:[[User:Kwame Nkrumah|Kwame Nkrumah]] (Result: not blocked)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Template:FC Chornomorets Odessa}}. {{3RRV|Ryulong}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FC_Chornomorets_Odessa&oldid=71494021 02:24, 24 August 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FC_Chornomorets_Odessa&diff=71494050&oldid=71494021 02:24, 24 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FC_Chornomorets_Odessa&diff=71494657&oldid=71494169 02:28, 24 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FC_Chornomorets_Odessa&diff=71497911&oldid=71495470 02:34, 24 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FC_Chornomorets_Odessa&diff=71497911&oldid=71497738 02:49, 24 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
:Not necessary. He is well aware of the existance and meaning of 3RR (see two paragraphs above)

Time report made: 00:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
*I am doing Vandalism reverts, which are not covered by 3RR, you have been doing the other reverts first, and I did not do several of those Reverts prior to the ones you yourself made. [[User:Ryulong|Ryūlóng]] 00:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
*:It is not vandalism, it is content dispute, as I clearly stated in your talkpage. I think that US law is applied in the US, so that Fair use should be applied to those logos, you maintain (see talkpage) that Ukraine law applies even to Wikipedia US servers, so that the images are in public domain. It is content, it seems to me.--[[User:Kwame Nkrumah|Kwame Nkrumah]] 00:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
*This seems to be a simple misunderstanding of copyright law, so I don't think a block would be appropriate here, though I am looking for confirmation as to whether or not the Ukranian law applies to Wikipedia, as it's based in Florida. [[User:Cowman109|Cowman109]][[User talk:Cowman109|Talk]] 01:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
*I'm torn. this feels like a retaliatory report to me, with a side order of wikilawyering, but if it's a straight revert war, both parties should get blocks, because the party trying to "defend" shouldn't be revert warring either... this is where tag teaming actually can be good, as it shows a consensus against the change. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
*As long as the user now understands the copyright issues now, and will not revert anymore, we should be fine not blocking. Copy violations are a serious reason enough to revert, though getting an admin in rather than passing 3RR would be more effective and would not violate any rules.'''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
**To be clear. I don't feel strongly either way about a block. But certainly, any such revert warring in the future should result in a block. Unless there is simple vandalism, you should abide 3RR and get an admin to deal with it, even if it involves serious possible copyright issues. I suppose '''blatant''', vandal-like, copyvios can be considered vandalism when repeatedly added, but I don't think that was the case here.'''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:NBGPWS]] reported by User:[[User:TheKaplan|TheKaplan]] (Result: 48 hours)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Protest Warrior}}. {{3RRV|NBGPWS}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: latest one is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protest_Warrior&oldid=71482761 23:14, 23 August 2006] Previous ones were reverts after several other edits had happened.

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protest_Warrior&diff=prev&oldid=71310468 03:42, 23 August 2006] original edit reverted: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protest_Warrior&diff=71278990&oldid=71278805]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protest_Warrior&diff=prev&oldid=71334274 06:59, 23 August 2006] original edit reverted: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protest_Warrior&diff=71310613&oldid=71310468]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protest_Warrior&diff=prev&oldid=71513995 02:37, 24 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protest_Warrior&diff=prev&oldid=71515240 02:45, 24 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* Not neccesary. This user is well aware of 3RR. He has been blocked for it in the past and warned repeatedly, although not by using the official template.

Time report made: 08:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:''' These reverts are only the latest to violate the rule, and the ones in the last 24 hours. This editor actually has about 7 reverts, maybe more, in the last 30 hours or so, but it was chosen not to file a report because of a combination of disagreement over the intent of the policy and my not being able to figure out the complaint format (i hope i got it right this time). [[User:NBGPWS]] is well aware of the policy, having been blocked under it in the past and warned repeatedly. User is also being considered for a block for incivility and trolling. [[User:TheKaplan|TheKaplan]] 08:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comment''' - I believe he has the official template as he was blocked only 2 days ago for the same thing. Also, he created a sock puppet in order to appear not violate another 3RR (it was banned today). Here's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/NBGPWS Sock Puppet Case].--[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
:Thank you for clarifying. What I meant was that he didn't have the template warning for ''this particular'' violation, but I guess that's unimportant if he has it for another. [[User:TheKaplan|TheKaplan]] 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

*I have blocked the user for 48 hours per [[WP:3RR]]. '''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Oiboy77]] reported by [[User:Humus sapiens]] (Result:56 hours)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Human rights in Israel}}. {{3RRV|Oiboy77}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Israel&oldid=71391439 06:58, 23 August 2006 by Avraham]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Israel&diff=71340543&oldid=70902942 00:01, 23 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Israel&diff=71423499&oldid=71391439 09:52, 23 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Israel&diff=71427890&oldid=71427111 10:14, 23 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Israel&diff=71549403&oldid=71453628 23:00, 23 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOiboy77&diff=71558907&oldid=71452846 00:38, 24 August 2006] (that's 8:38 UTC)

Time report made: 09:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
The history of Oiboy77's "contributions" to WP is an uninterrupted stream of POV pushing, intimidations, 3RR violations, fake signatures and plain vandalism. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] [[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну?]] 09:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
:See his block log, I have therefore blocked him for 56 hours. --[[User:PinchasC|PinchasC]] | [[User_talk:PinchasC|£€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€]] 11:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Netscott]] reported by [[User:Jayjg]] (Result:1 week)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|New anti-Semitism}}. {{3RRV|Netscott}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&oldid=71601636 14:35, 24 August 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=71603778&oldid=71601636 14:47, 24 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=71614785&oldid=71605378 15:49, 24 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=71605378&oldid=71604559 14:56, 24 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=71615517&oldid=71615248 15:53, 24 August 2006]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=71617200&oldid=71616732 16:01, 24 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANetscott&diff=71618941&oldid=71613456 16:10, 24 August 2006]

Time report made: 16:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
*Netscott doesn't like an image in an article, and is gaming the 3RR rule to deprecate it in various ways. His first two reverts are straightforward, adding text to the caption. The third makes it invisible, the fourth marks it as "original research", and the fifth adds slightly different wording to the caption, but meaning the same thing. Quoting from [[WP:3RR]]:
<blockquote><blockquote>
Reverting, in this context, means '''undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part'''. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.</blockquote></blockquote>
*The editor is insistent that he will not revert himself. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANetscott&diff=71619840&oldid=71619613]. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 16:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
**As I already stated to [[User:Jayjg]] I'll not be editing further today on this article. Please reveiw these diffs carefully... and please inform me if they do constitue a breach of 3RR. I beg to differ. ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|Netscott]])'' 17:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
***It's a clear 3RR violation. The policy makes clear that repeated undoing of another editor's work counts toward a 3RR violation, as was explained in the warning you received. You're attempting to game the system, and you ignored the warnings and turned down the chance to revert yourself. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 17:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
****SlimVirgin, there's only two editors who've been undoing another editor's work more than three times here (and you falsely labeled one of your reverts a "rvv"). ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|Netscott]])'' 17:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
*****I made [[Talk:New_anti-Semitism#Question_about_top_poster_image|numerous]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin#Why_are_you_reverting.3F|efforts]] to resolve this lack of observation of NPOV policy. How is citing what an image's source claims about the image "deprecating" it? ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|Netscott]])'' 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
******Yes, well your continued claim that this violates NPOV, despite your refusal to cite the actual section of policy violated, in no way vitiates your violation of 3RR, and refusal to undo that violation. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 22:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
*******I honestly do not believe that I've violated 3RR here. What's up with the out of order time stamps in your report here by the way? ''([[User_talk:Netscott|→]][[User:Netscott|Netscott]])'' 23:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
********I'm adding for the record that Netscott has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ANetscott blocked six times in five months] by several different admins. If I'd known, I wouldn't have wasted my time leaving warnings. This user is a clear system gamer. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 01:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

*'''Blocked''' for a week - can't believe that he only got 12hrs for all these rpt tranzgressions.'''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[User talk:Blnguyen|rant-line]] 01:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:66.206.174.80]] reported by User:[[User:JBKramer|JBKramer]] (Result:24 hours)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Inflation}}. {{3RRV|66.206.174.80}}:

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&oldid=71523092 03:43, 24 August 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=71580992&oldid=71549092 12:05, 24 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=71610082&oldid=71595320 15:21, 24 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=71637080&oldid=71629956 17:45, 24 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&diff=71640503&oldid=71638822 18:03, 24 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.206.174.80&diff=prev&oldid=71638608 17:53, 24 August 2006]

Time report made: 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:''' reverting in "'''inflation''' is a rise in the aggregate money supply", which is a fringe POV, discussed numerous times on the talk page but tennaciously edited in by individuals who hold the fringe POV. [[User:JBKramer|JBKramer]] 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

*I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. [[User:Alphachimp|'''alpha''''''Chimp''']] [[User talk:Alphachimp|'''laudare''']] 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Bov]] reported by User:[[User:Peephole|Peephole]] (Result: not blocked)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Jim Hoffman}}. {{3RRV|Bov}}:

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Hoffman&oldid=71001113 20:04, 21 August 2006 ]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Hoffman&diff=71476662&oldid=71036803 00:38, 24 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Hoffman&diff=71482426&oldid=71477137 01:12, 24 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Hoffman&diff=71489690&oldid=71486504 01:58, 24 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Hoffman&diff=71684418&oldid=71668016 23:53, 24 August 2006]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Hoffman&diff=71693678&oldid=71686478 00:50, 25 August 2006]

Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABov&diff=71686251&oldid=69008206 22:03, 24 August 2006]

Time report made: 23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
* With some slight alterations, user has reverted the page five times today. I warned him but it didn't seem to help. --[[User:Peephole|Peephole]] 23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
* Please take a look at the discussion pages on our user pages and on the Hoffman page - [[User:Peephole|Peephole]] is reverting to versions of the Hoffman page with information that deletes key aspects of the article - such as the major websites designed by Hoffman, the internal links, and calls for citations which have already been addressed - and then tells everyone else not to make reverts, but to change things piecemeal . . . to which he himself then reverts over. Others are attempting dialog on the discussion page over these confusing changes [[User:Peephole|Peephole]]. Jim Hoffman cannot have incorrect information on his webpage so I am reverting to keep the page correct before the [[User:Peephole|Peephole]] changes. We can debate about semantics of conspriacy theorist or 9/11 researcher, but my concern is in references to nanotechnology and deletions of several links on the page going to his websites with no explanation. [[User:Bov|bov]] 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
* If you want to make some changes to a page, you don't just go reverting them two weeks back. You just make the changes. His main website is already linked and the other two sites can easily be accessed from there, wikipedia is not a web directory. The internal links I have removed according to the guide of layout. Other editors like [[User:Tom harrison]] have supported my edits. --[[User:Peephole|Peephole]] 23:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
:The revert rule warning diff says "you have violated 3rr" so its post facto. I'll treat that as this user's first warning.'''[[User talk:Voice of All|Voice-of-All]]''' 05:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Cretanpride]] reported by User:[[User:Akhilleus|--Akhilleus]] ([[User talk:Akhilleus|talk]]) (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Homosexuality in ancient Greece}}. {{3RRV|Cretanpride}}: 


* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece&diff=71717289&oldid=71716886 21:11, 24 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece&diff=71725054&oldid=71719738 22:03, 24 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece&diff=71726733&oldid=71726051 22:14, 24 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece&diff=prev&oldid=71733229 22:56, 24 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://WarningDiff DiffTime]

Time report made: 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

[[User:Cretanpride]] has been making disruptive edits to [[Homosexuality in ancient Greece]] and its talk page for at least a week, often using sockpuppets. On [[Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece]], a suspected sockpuppet of [[User:Cretanpride]] made the comment: "The article needs to be changed. I will NEVER stop arguing against this article until it is changed."

:I've blocked him for 31 hours, and will block him again for longer if his disruption continues. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] ([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]]) 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:RoddyYoung ]] reported by User:[[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] (Result: 24hrs)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Bahá'í Faith}}. {{3RRV|RoddyYoung }}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith&oldid=71570022 06:27, August 24, 2006 (EDT)]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith&diff=71804526&oldid=71740845 09:30, August 25, 2006 (EDT)]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith&diff=71814449&oldid=71804841 10:39, August 25, 2006 (EDT)]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith&diff=71817475&oldid=71816520 10:59, August 25, 2006 (EDT)]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith&diff=71818665&oldid=71817650 11:06, August 25, 2006 (EDT)]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith&diff=71821509&oldid=71819636 11:24, August 25, 2006 (EDT)]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoddyYoung&diff=prev&oldid=71817906 11:01, August 25, 2006 (EDT)]

Time report made: 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
* Has been adding the external link multiple times a day, when there is overwhelming conensus that the link does not pass muster (like linking a google search on a term). I think he would keep adding the link after a block as well, so I recommend a note on his talk page to the effect that it is not appropriate behaviour or something. -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000]] 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
* In German Wikipedia we would call him a troll. --[[User:Mipago|Mipago]] 15:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
* What he's doing is vandalism. He knows we don't want it there, he just can't accept that people have a different opinion than him [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:*24 hours. [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Hanuman_Das]] reported by User:[[User:King Vegita|KV]]([[User Talk:King Vegita|Talk]]) (Result: no action)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Talk:Hermeticism}}. {{3RRV|Hanuman_Das}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hermeticism&oldid=68791362 05:16, August 10, 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHermeticism&diff=71850378&oldid=71848894]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hermeticism&diff=prev&oldid=71846203]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hermeticism&diff=prev&oldid=71844417]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hermeticism&diff=prev&oldid=71758881]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Hermeticism&curid=3917680&diff=71845972&oldid=71845396]

Time report made: 19:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

The issue is one of Hanuman not wanting a WikiProject tag on the page. Three revert rule warning is not of me warning him, but of him warning me after I reverted something else a mere 2 times, showing that he understood the rule enough to understand he was breaking it.[[User:King Vegita|KV]]([[User Talk:King Vegita|Talk]]) 19:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't believe that 3RR applies to inappropriate talk page tagging. If it does, please simply let me know and I will observe it. [[User:King Vegita]] is trying to override a request for a survey as to whether it is appropriate to add the tag to an article which does not fit the project. I am happy for him to add it if he has support, but think he should have the patience to wait for the result of the survey. Thanks. —[[User:Hanuman Das|Hanuman Das]] 20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

::If you want the survey, you can have the survey, but in the mean time there is no need for your version to have to be the one that is up. You are the one who wanted to push for the change, initially reverting anothers addition, because you did not find it factual for the premise. In respect of the right to vanish (which you did not do and [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Right_to_vanish Right to Vanish] does not guarantee) I will merely leave here the fact that Hanuman had another name in which he had a 3RR violation in the past. Hanuman had deleted the original post.

::[[User:King Vegita|KV]]([[User Talk:King Vegita|Talk]]) 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

::I also note that Hanuman had to be aware that it was in effect there, as he was bringing it up over the categorization of a category. WP:3RR clearly states, "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part."

::[[User:King Vegita|KV]]([[User Talk:King Vegita|Talk]]) 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

*3RR does apply, but in light of the user page tagging incident, I'm inclined to take no action for the breach. Please consider [[Wikipedia:Mediation|mediation]].[[User:El C|El_C]] 01:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:TDC ]] reported by User:[[User:Marmoulak]] (Result:Blocked for 1 week)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Iran-Iraq War}}. {{3RRV|TDC }}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran-Iraq_War&oldid=71838460 16:57, 25 August 2006 edit]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran-Iraq_War&diff=71843234&oldid=71841506 17:24, 25 August 2006 edit]

* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran-Iraq_War&diff=71850477&oldid=71848919 18:09, 25 August 2006 edit]

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran-Iraq_War&oldid=71848238 17:55, 25 August 2006 edit]

* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran-Iraq_War&diff=71853522&oldid=71851059 18:19, 25 August 2006 edit]

* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran-Iraq_War&diff=71853522&oldid=71851059 18:27, 25 August 2006 edit]

* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran-Iraq_War&diff=71853767&oldid=71851059 18:29, 25 August 2006 edit]

* 6th rever: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran-Iraq_War&diff=71854808&oldid=71851059 18:35, 25 August 2006 edit]



Time report made: ([[User:Marmoulak|Marmoulak]] 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

'''Comments:'''

* User:TDC has been blocked for violation of 3RR two dozen times. He changes materials without explaination and removes sourced material to push his own POV. First, he accused me of quoting colonel lang out of context. I had included every single statement made by Colonel lang in the disputed paragraph, he removed some of the quotes and added a part of report that WAS NOT, a statement by colonel lang as a quote by colonel Lang. he reverted paragraph two times([[User:Marmoulak|Marmoulak]] 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC))
* later he called [[Gary Sick]] a liar and a fraud and and added the sentence "gary sick is a liar and a fraud" to the article and removed parts of article. He reverted, this change 3 times.([[User:Marmoulak|Marmoulak]] 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

::It appears he's on revert parole from ArbCom. As such, I've blocked him for one week. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 23:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Myung1]] reported by [[User:Jayjg]] (Result: 24 hours)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|New anti-Semitism}}. {{3RRV|Myung1}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&oldid=71760187 06:20, 25 August 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=71852580&oldid=71837921 18:22, 25 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=71856797&oldid=71854664 18:46, 25 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=71858240&oldid=71857936 18:54, 25 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=71873592&oldid=71873321 20:17, 25 August 2006]


Time report made: 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
* Editor keep removing the direct quotation "... It is [[neo-Nazis]] donning checkered Palestinian [[kaffiyeh]]s and Palestinians lining up to buy copies of ''[[Mein Kampf]]''" from the article. Editor is obviously aware of the 3RR, since he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_anti-Semitism&diff=71858240&oldid=71857936 actually warned other people not to violate it] before doing so himself. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
**User attempts to avoid 3RR in the 4th revert by replacing the comment rather than removing it. [[User:Isopropyl|Isopropyl]] 21:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
***Actually, he attempted to ''game'' 3RR by replacing the quotation. He really hates that quotation, and will do anything to get it out, including violating 3RR. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
***In fact, he even had the temerity to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=71858721 warn other editors about 3RR on their Talk: pages], quoting from the policy itself, before he violated 3RR. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]] 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

**** Blocked for 24 hours. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:TJ_Spyke]] reported by User:[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] (Result: 24 hours for DivineShadow218)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Wii}}. {{3RRV|TJ_Spyke}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wii&oldid=71910318 18:58, August 25, 2006]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wii&oldid=71910713 19:01, August 25, 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wii&oldid=71911460 19:13, August 25, 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wii&oldid=71912377 19:07, August 25, 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wii&oldid=71913174 19:01, August 25, 2006]


Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

Editor kept adding romourd launch games to this article arter I supplied an article in the talk page how the games he was adding were confermed NOT for launch but launch window, which is after the launch of the console. --[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

:Please provide diff links rather than oldids. Not only did you not inform TJ Spyke of the 3RR, but you too have broken it. As such, you've been blocked for 24 hours. [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] 01:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Qwasty]] reported by User:[[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] (Result:)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Child pornography}}. {{3RRV|Qwasty}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime]

* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=71916070&oldid=71902872 00:41, 26 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=71926560&oldid=71925857 02:01, 26 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=next&oldid=71938183 03:36, 26 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=next&oldid=71940271 03:48, 26 August 2006]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=next&oldid=71942415 04:02, 26 August 2006]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQwasty&diff=65224786&oldid=63733560 16:09, 22 July 2006]

Time report made: 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
General content dispute over a section. The other editor involved, [[User:DanB DanD]] did not recieve a warning until recently, and seems to have stopped reverting post-warning. [[User:Qwasty]] will give vandalism warnings for people who undo the reverts.

===[[User:VIOLATOR_USERNAME]] reported by User:[[User:DivineShadow218|DivineShadow218]] (Result:)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|PROBLEM ARTICLE/PAGE NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}: 

* Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime]

* 1st revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 2nd revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 3rd revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 4th revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]


Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://WarningDiff DiffTime]

Time report made: 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''

</nowiki></pre>

==[[User:Qwasty]] reported by [[User:DanB_DanD]]==
User persistently adds OR to [[Child pornography]], reverting deletion by three different editors.

* One: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=71836317&oldid=71835173]
* Two: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=71916070&oldid=71902872]
* Three: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=71926560&oldid=71925857]
* Four: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=71939852&oldid=71938183]
* Five: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=71941309&oldid=71940271]
* Six: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&curid=3995132&action=history]

 [[User:DanB_DanD|Dan'''B'''†Dan'''D''']] 04:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Al-Andalus]] reported by User: [[User:Psychohistorian]]===
[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on [[White(people)]]. {{3RRV:Al-Andalus}}:

*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_%28people%29&oldid=71933169 02:48 26 August 2006 ]
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_%28people%29&oldid=71929534 02:22 26 August 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_%28people%29&oldid=71935134 03:02 26 August 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_%28people%29&oldid=71936510 03:11 26 August 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_%28people%29&oldid=71939989 03:37 26 August 2006]

Time report made: 24:11, 26 August 2006 (EST)

'''Comments:'''

The user has a history of breaking the three revert rule most recently that I can find on January 2nd of this year. The countries in the list he keeps adding have no sources. This was identified as unsourced over a week ago and a week was given to provide a source. Now that the unsourced countries are being removed, he keeps adding them back without an accompanying source.

Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-24T22:52:09Z

71.74.209.82: NSF reference

{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
# [[Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 1|August 2006 – August 2006]]
# 
#
|}

== Citizenship granted by court ==

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

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

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

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

::"The term Anchor Baby is pejorative" may be relevant to whether the name of that article should be changed, but it isn't relevant to whether the content of that article (and of the relevant material in the 14th amendment article) should be combined with the same material in this article and ONE article created from it. "If the citezenship status of peoplo born un the USA (to illegal ot to legal resident parents) is a legal issue we must have a discussion in the artlicle" NOT true as is evidenced by the fact that we've already done the same thing with other content in the article.
Incidently, maintaining three different pages with the same content creates what is called a content fork (see [[Wikipedia:Content forking]]). From that page, "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject..content forks ..are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies."[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

== login 68.223.158.169 ==

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

Wow! Wasting way toooo much time here. It's me. Now I'm logged in[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 04:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

:unverifiable

::Dear Anon. Please revert this change. Here the source "according to the [Pew Hispanic Center] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. Further, by 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53]. If the numbers are down then the fear that illegas are "pouring over our borders" is unfounded. Thank you. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

this article isn't about legal immigration

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

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

:Please get a [[Special:Userlogin|username]], as your ISP is generating dymanic IP addresses and it is quite impossible to follow your edits. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

weasel words

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

unsourced

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

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

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

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

weasel words

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

no source

== Anon edits ==

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

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

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

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

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

:::::Among other things, it is forbiddden to use different IP addresses to avoid the 3RR. In order to bettre identify who is who, we may have to start identifying those IPs which appear to belong to a single user, and to come up with a name for that user. You can pick one yourself or we can do it. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::This user has been warned already several times about disruption related to this article:
:::::*Three times as [[User_Talk:71.74.209.82]]
:::::*Twice as [[User talk:198.97.67.58]]
:::::*Twice as [[User talk:198.97.67.57]]
::::: On this basis alone, this editor IP addresses may be blocked for disruption. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

::"Look 71.74.209.82, you have been warned seven times already about disruptive edits to this article." You tried an WP:RFFP calling me disruptive and it was immediately turned down. Now you are being petulent.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If at all, I would be petulant, not petulent. Nevertheless, VoiceofAll will hopefully review the situation, as it is clear now that you have engaged in disruptive behavior from at least three IP addresses. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::::No problems. I will place a request at [[WP:ANI]], so other admins can look at this issue. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

::What a load of bullshit. If anyone tells you that you need to register, report it to the admin noticeboard. You don't need to register, some editors are just talking shit here. {{unsigned|Tess Tickle}}

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

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

:You can use these templates to request a conversation about mergin articles:
:*{{tl|mergeto}} - add a <tt>{<nowiki>{mergeto|PRUCOL}}</nowiki></tt>, for example to the [[Anchor baby]] article
:*{{tl|mergefrom}} - add a <tt><nowiki>{{mergefrom|Anchor bab}}</nowiki></tt>, for example to the [[PRUCOL]] article
:Concerning your last edit, please summarize the Pew Hspanic report cite text you added rather that pasting full quotes. Yoy can have a full quote as a footnote. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

==Renew America==
The direct quote from Renew America in which it defines itself was replaced with something which I have no idea where it came from. Why replace a direct quote with something the editor seems to have made up?[[User:198.97.67.59|198.97.67.59]] 11:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you look at the edit summary, you will see where it comes from: the description metatag text of the website's home page. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
::And how is that suppossed to be sourced in the article?[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::By the use of {{tl|cite web}} [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

==Renew America copyright violation==
Currently we are using a full paragraph from the Renew America web site, specifically the article titled: Mexican government running US immigration policy--Part III[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713], last paragraph on the page. The over all article is approximately 1954 words in length, of which this article is using approximately 195 words, or 10% of the total article. 10% of someone else’s article is not fair use by any definition that I can find. Part of the text is used in - Illegal border crossing-, and the other part is used in - Use of military to patrol border-.

[[Wikipedia:Fair use]] lists for text: 

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

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

[[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 11:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:Please delete the offending text. Thanks for spotting it. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 15:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::Obviously it needs to be fixed. The problem is that, on one hand, we should quote people whenever discussing their position and on the other hand, we can't quote too much without risking copyright infringement. So, how much needs to be cut to avoid copytright infringement?[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:::You can summarize the quote in the body of the article and then link to a footnote in which a short quote can be added. That is, of course, if the quote is attributed to a notable/reliable source. See [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:CITE]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::::See [[fair use]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 23:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::According to that link, "it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy". The intent in this article was not to supersede the use of the orginal work or to substitute the review of it. So, there's no basis for saying that 10% is too much[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

==It follows that…==
This section is clearly violates Wikipedia’s policy on Original Research - [[Wikipedia:No original research]]:

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

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

The policy in a nut shell is stated as:

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

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

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

==Deletion of unsourced content==

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

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

has been deleted because it is unsourced[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 14:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

==ACLU position paper==
An [[ACLU]] position paper "The Rights of Immigrants" cites a study by the [[Urban Institute]] in which it is stated that immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services. <ref>ACLU, ''The Rights of Immigrants -ACLU Position Paper (9/8/2000)'', [http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11713pub20000908.html available online] "The Urban Institute has concluded that "immigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services." This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. In fact, immigrants pay substantially more in taxes every year than they receive in welfare benefits. "</ref>
That study [http://www.urban.org/Publications/411338.html] focused on Washington DC and, so, did not factor in the effect at the state and community level and focused on immigrants who are mostly wealthy and not illegal immigrants. It is not connected with the subject of this article.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:Not so (my highlights):
:*"The metropolitan area is relatively affluent and boasts a strong economy that attracts large numbers of immigrants for jobs '''at both the high- and low-skilled ends of the labor market'''"
:* "Troughout the report we refer to households headed by immigrants ('''whether citizens, legal immigrants, or unauthorized migrants''') as “immigrant households” and compare their incomes and tax payments to households headed by native-born U.S. citizens."

:You can add that the study was done in Washington DC, if so you wish. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

::::All references are provided. These sources include POVs on the subject and relevant. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Please refrain from adding uour own commentary on sources. From [[WP:NOR]] (my highlights):
::::::"Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, '''articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments''', concepts, data, ideas, or statements '''that serves to advance a position'''". [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:Well, if you are going to do it anyway, then I'll just go ahead and delete the stuff now.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Request for comment placed at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Economy_and_trade]] [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

==[[Urban Institute]] study deletion==
Why was the citation from Urban Insititute deleted? It addresses undocumented workers. See below (my highlight). Are "undocumented workers" not "illegal immigrants"?[[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

*The link to the study is [http://www.example.com here]. It is titled, "Civic Contributions: Taxes paid by Immigrants in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area". It has one reference to "illegal immigration" (it is quoted in the RfC). It has three references to "Undocumented" and they are "The share of immigrants who were legal permanent residents (LPRs) in 2000 (27 percent) was nearly the same as the unocumented share and again matched the national pattern."
* "Grant temporary or permanent work authorization to undocumented immigrants"
*"Salvadorans we classified as undocumented"
[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 02:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

::It seems, then, that the article is relevant. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== PRUCOL ==

I removed the mention PRUCOL under "Citizenship and the children of immigrants". It had a [citation needed] for a few days an noboby provided support for the statement. 
According to the Department of Labor, in defining who is and isn't elegible for unemployment compensation they define PRUCOL as:
:Quote. The phrase "permanently residing in the United States under color of law" applies only to the following classes of aliens:

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

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

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

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

For more information see "UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 01-86, Change 1" (2/16/89)
[http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl86/uipl_0186c1.htm]. It has nothing to do with children born to undocumented workers.

[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 20:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== RFC Summary ==

An editor is arguing for the deletion of sourced material, based on his assertion that the material is not relevant to this article as it is not directly related to "illegal immigration". The editor that added the material, asserts that it is relevant and provides context. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=68308447&oldid=68306164 Diff]]

; Comments by involved editors
:The material that is being deleted is relevant to this article as it provides context to the illegal immigration debate. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:To support the view that illegal immigrants do not have a negative affect on the economy, Jossi added an article to an ACLU article on immigration (not specifically illegal immigration) which referred to an Urban Institute study which stated the following "We find no substantial differences in the average tax payments or share of income paid in taxes between natives and immigrants, with one important exception: the unauthorized population." which is the opposite of how Jossi attempted to use the article. It is clear from this example that we cannot assume that the findings of studies on immigration necessarily translate to illegal immigration. As a result, we must ensure that studies in this article specifically state that they include illegal immigration.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 01:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::That study addresses undocumented workers and their tax contribution to the economy. See [[#Urban_Institute_study_deletion]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, and it says the opposite of what you claim it says. It makes clear that the economics of legal immigration do not translate to the ecoomics of illegal immigration so we need to use studies which specifically focus on illegal immigration.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 02:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:::That in itself makes it a good source. You could add a citation ot that effect, as well as to include that "'immigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services.' This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. In fact, immigrants pay substantially more in taxes every year than they receive in welfare benefits". [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 02:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::::If you are willing to acknowledge that studies on immigration don't necessarily translate to illegal immigration (and, so, stop treating studies on immigration as if they do in the article), I have no problem putting in the article this example of how that's the case.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 02:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::The problem is that studies about immigration in the US include both legal and illegal immigration, as both are intrinsically linked. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::We need to assume that's true only when they specifically say so, else that assumpton constitutes original research - especially in light of the fact that we already have sources which show that the economics of legal immigration and illegal immigration are different.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

; Comments by editors responding to this RfC
* - In my view, the information is relevant and it should be "present", if not in this article in another. I believe Psycohistorian has a point when he says that they aren't directly related to illegal immigration. What I read seems to refer to all kinds of immigration, what means it also refers to illegal immigration, so it makes sense to have it here. Perhaps the solution would be to identify the specific points described by the articles and analyse if them apply or not to illegal immigration. Pointing the differences between the legal and illegal variants could be very interesting. [[User:MJGR|MJGR]] 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::The problem with that, however, is that several of the sources which are presented make clear that their findings do not translate to illegal immigration. Also, a comparison between illegal and legal immigration should be in the general [[Immigration in the United States]] article, not here.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If Psycohistorian is right and some sources do not translate to illegal immigration I believe it's correct to remove them from this article and place them in the general article [[Immigration in the United States]]. Probably a reference in this article to the "general" entry and the comparison between immigration variants would be useful. Perhaps a solution would be to state clearly why both of you believe that every cited source is related explicitly to illegal immigration or not. [[User:MJGR|MJGR]] 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
* -
:Stating clearly why both of us believe that every cited source is related explicitly to illegal immigration or not is a very good idea. But if there is no comment in the discussion page on it, I should be allowed to follow policy and remove it. Also, if there are studies which state that they are covering illegal immigration and they conflict with other studies which throw all immigration into a common pot, it should be made clear that the general article on immigration should not have the same level of significance as the article on illegal immigration in the context of illegal immigration.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=68308447&oldid=68306164 this blanking without any edit summary] is shocking. All notable parities and their options should be included, including the ACLU statment regarding undocumented workers. [[User:JBKramer|JBKramer]] 17:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

==Rand Study deletion==
"please do not add commentary, in particular when it is incorrect. The book in question discusses immigration including illegal"
provide evidence of that or the comment will be returned to the article.{{unsigned|Psychohistorian}}

:Read the book. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:There is a complaint about your behavior at [[WP:ANI#User_talk:71.74.209.82]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 02:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:As per your deletions, which prompted my warnings on your page, please do not delete material that is properly sourced. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 02:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

::I am lodging a formal complaint which cant be done from WP:ANI. Do you agree to arbitration or should I just elevate the issue beyond that?[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 02:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:::As I said in my talk page, Arbitration is the last resort in [[WP:DP]]. You may lodge a complaint at [[WP:ANI]], if you believe it is related to my duties as an administrator of Wikipedia. By the way, and before I make a request for checkuser to confirm this, are 71.74.209.82 and you the same person? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 02:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, 71.74.209.82 and I are the same person.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 02:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::::Because it wasn't relevant to the economics issue[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 03:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

OK. What about this. We give [[amnesty]] to each other, [[tabula rasa]], and start afresh? OK? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]

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

::I understand from the above that you reject my offer. Well, at least I tried. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== Border crossing ==

The section about alleged abuses by the border patrol, is more appropriate to be located in the section about "Border crossing". [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:::I kindly request that you restore that text to the appropriate section. ''''I refuse to editwar with you'''. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

::::It is where it should be. Its nice that you aren't going to editwar any more, but that doesn't mean that I have to do something which I think lowers the quality of the article.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 03:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: No. It is not. The legal section has nothing to do with that material. Allegation of abuses at the border, need to be locate in the section that discusses the border. And when I said I do not want to edit war with you, I mean that I refuse to be drawn into useless edit wars, as the ones you are attempting to instigate with your deletions, moving around materials, etc. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 04:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

:Is not that obvious? Nevertheless, maybe you can find a better place in this article for that material. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Illegal border crossing section ==

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

==Borer Patrol abuse==
I recommend that "Allegations of Border Patrol abuse

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

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

:No. The material is related to this article. '''Please do not delete properly sourced material''' [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 02:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Zogby ==

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

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

::I am not insinuating anything. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::I don't think so..
::# A "merge" was discussed, that means combining the two articles into one
::# The merge was proposed by you, but not agreed to. You need to ask for consensus for such merge.
::Please revert. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Note that there is no consensus for such merge'''. You are doing this unilateraly and that is not acceptable. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

::Border patrol abuse of illegals is a criminal act. An editorial states an opinion about an article, the statement about complaints not being the same as proven incidences is a statement of fact, not an editorial. If it were stated as "these are complaints, not proven incidences, and should be dismissed", that would be an editorial. I changed the wording regarding "despite" to address the problem you have there.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 19:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::"Border patrol abuse of illegals is a criminal act". Maybe. We are talking here of specific allegations of abuse. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

====Format and refs====
Please use the proper format for these ({{tl|cite web}}. Thanks [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
*[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_re_us/border_patrol_corruption_1 Border agent gets 5 years for smuggling]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051003-122319-3501r.htm U.S. probes 'green cards for sex']
*[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/94491.php Border agent pleads guilty to harboring illegal entrant]
*[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20050805-9999-7m5agent.html Border agent said to also be smuggler]
*[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/81082.php Border agent accused of hiding an illegal entrant]
*[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/65117.php U.S. border agent indicted]

==Immigration with and without quotas==
Why is this section, which clearly discusses the history of quotas, not being left in the history section?[[User:198.97.67.59|198.97.67.59]] 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Absolutely. As per Wikipedia content policies, significant views described in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] either pro or con, can and should be included. All other material, should be mercilessly deleted. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

== Edits ==

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

[[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

== Study ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::::There are a very few statements in that article which do fall within the scope here. Some of them are as follows, "The share of the foreign-born population who are illegal aliens has risen steadily. Illegal aliens made up 21 percent of the foreign-born in 1980, 25 percent in 2000, and 28 percent in 2005." "Anchor babies" provide[s] opportunities for many aliens to plant roots in the United States. Those aliens might not otherwise have done so." "In the 1980s ..the nation absorbed .., by most estimates, at least 2 million illegal [immigrants]. " "A Congressional Research Service report from 1977 indicates that INS estimates of the illegal alien population in the mid-1970s ranged from 1 million to 12 million. CRS cites a Cabinet-level task force, which concluded that "hard data on illegal aliens is virtually non-existent." Many citations of the mid-20th century decades seemed to extrapolate from the number of deportable aliens apprehended. See Joyce Vialet, "Illegal Aliens: Analysis and Background," (77-47 ED), Congressional Research Service, February 16, 1977."
But its like picking a needle out of a haystack.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 15:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

== Population Size ==

Under the IP 74.225.89.228 (sorry forgot to sign in) i did a major rewrite of the section on population size. Including formating most of the references. The section now reads as a single article instead of a tug of war between two sides. I hope we can all use this to move forward; please do not simply roll back this effort; add to it! Thank you. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 08:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:Looks good to me. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 12:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

:::The end result is pretty good. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::::In your opinion. It is easy to see, however, that it buries relevant material deep within redundant material.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 14:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::What material is redundant? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Most of the content in that section is redundant with [[Anchor baby]] or the article on the 14th Amendment.
::::::By the way, there was a massive amount of sourced data which was removed from the article by Morlesg without explanation (for example, the table on remitances, the detail on how the illegal immigration pop is calculated, and there's a -lot- more.). He also didn't follow the custom of tagging unsourced content and waiting a week before removing it. I'm going to have to go back through his twenty or so edits and piece the article back together from his damage. That's going to take a couple of hours I suspect.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 15:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

:::If that is the issue, then re-add the material that was lost rather than reverting. That is called collaboratve editing. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 20:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

*The original article states, "foreign born residents particularly illegal immigrants" and was changed by Morlsg to "illegal immigrants". It was done without explanation and means something completely different given that foreign born residents may be legal immigrants. There's no 100% overlap there.
::The way it was written had two problems: (1) Why would foreign born Legal residenta have any "possible reasons for not reporting their presence" they are in the US lebally and have nothing to fear; and (2) I did leave the comment on census under reportin foreign born illegals because the explanation made sense. Maybe I should have taken it out as it was unsourced. In fact, what "language and communication problems" could there be if the census forms are available in Spanish (and other languages)??[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
*"at a more-or-less steady rate" was removed by Morlsg without explanation. It is information which is well sourced and relevant (changes in rate are as important as rate of change itself). Again, he gave no explanation.
::Sorry, I did not see "more-or-less steady rate" in the original article and found the words to be (to borrow a term you have used in the past) weasel words. Maybe if you had quoted the grouth number or the growth rate from the source it would have looked better. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
*The remittances table was deleted because, it was claimed, the information was already in the article. But, as one can easily see, it is not.
::The table is not included in the original Bear Stearn article. The way it was written claimed to be quoting information from the Mexican Central Bank website and that was a .... (to use a kind word) mistake. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
*Morlsg claimed that the article which makes an arguement for illegal immigration being twice as high as the official figures suggest does not actually prove that the correct number is around 20 million. He's right after a fashion. The article explains in detail its argueemnt for why the actual number is twice the official number and the official number is 9 million and it states that the number may be as high as 20 million.
::For once I'm right. Thank you.[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
*An exploration of the history of remittances by illegals is relevant to the article and was sourced but was removed by Morlsg without explanation.
::Sorry, I removed an explanation of the change in remittance data that was editorialized to explain why the data did not match the intended argument. There is an article on remittances where you can include all the history. As remittances are done by most immigrants and not only by illegals it's importance to this topic may be secondary. But by all means include it in the right place. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

== Remittances ==

The published Bear Stearn report does not present the methodology to go from the growth of remitances to the growth of illegals. At least I could not see it after several readings, but I may have missed it. How do the researchers account for which % of the remittances is done by Mexican Americans legaly living in the US and what % is done by illegals??. Maybe the reason it's not in the report is because it cannot be done. Get this scenario: the number of illegal immigrants stays the same; but because the legal immigrants are getting richer they are increasing the amount they send back. That could account for the increase in remittances.
Anyway, if we are talking about finance the source is fantastic; but just because someone likes the numbres it does not make them better numbres that the "oficial" numbres from the US government. Oh yes! I removed the reference (editorial) that Homeland Security had given up on estimating a number because it was too hard!!
Sorry, I'm ranting. I need a clarification on the remittance data presented in the table. It was my understanding that, this being an encyclopedic article, we were not in the business of creating original content. Pasting togethjer data from many different sources to make it appear as if the BS (sorry, Bear Stearns) investigators actually present data to support their conclussions does not seem to be the correct practice. Should the table be removed? Thank you. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::No disrespect was intended. I was and am concerned only with the end result and you removed a lot of sourced and relevant content without explanation. Let me remind you that I found most of your edits justifiable and I left them in. For example, you just mentioned that you removed the statement about Homeland Security finding it too hard to get actual numbers. If you look at the changes I did, you'll see that I didn't put that statement back in the article. Let me say the same thing to you that I did to Jossi. Before you criticize the work I did, make sure you at least read the article in its present form. I spent an hour and a half looking at your edits because I knew you had good intent and I didn't want to undo anything positive that you did. But, having said that, noone said that the Bear Stearn numbers were better than the Homeland Security numbers. Providing numbers from as many significant studies as possible does make sense. We can have both the Homeland Security numbers and the Bear Stearn. We can point out that the Bear Stearn numbers are independently confirmed with the PEW studies.
Yes, lets focus on building the best article possible. I have never, to the best of my knowledge, removed data which met all the following criteria 1.) focused on illegal immigration 2.) was sourced 3.) was from a non-advocacy source which explained how they got their data AND 4.) was pro-illegal immigration. I know I've never done it without comment.
Almost none of your edits that I was objecting to had any comment as to why they were being done until now.
"The table is not included in the original Bear Stearn article." This was one of the few edits you did which did have comment and you stated that it was removed because the data existed elsewhere in the article, not that it wasn't included in the original Bear Stearn article.
"Sorry, I did not see "more-or-less steady rate" One can easily see that by eyeballing the remittances table from the Bank of Mexico.
I'll give a more detailed reply later today.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:You say: '' I have never, to the best of my knowledge, removed data which met all the following criteria 1.) focused on illegal immigration 2.) was sourced 3.) was from a non-advocacy source which explained how they got their data AND 4.) was pro-illegal immigration. ''
:Material in Wikipedia articles do not follow the "standard" you have created, it follows [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]].
:*If material is "pro" ilegal immigration, it can be included if it is described by a secondary reliable source, same for "anti" illegal immigration.
:*If material is from an advocacy either pro or con, and their viewpoints are significant, these can be included as well, providing of course, that there are reliable secondary sources that describe them
:* Arriving to a decision about which material is pertinet in wich material is not, is for editors to reach consensus about.
:I would suggest that you take these issue in ind when you do your edits. It will save a lot of time and aggravation. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

== Overview and numbers ==

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

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

== Citing ==

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

That is what we are doing with all the sources: summarizing the viewpoint and attributing them. The article in its entirety is online here [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995145-5,00.html here] [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 04:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== reasons to emigrate to the U. S. ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::I think you are the one getting spun up. I made a request of you. I began it with saying "please". Your tone since then has been increasingly hostile.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 00:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Hostile, you say? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

== Economics ==

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

== To .Psychohistorian re: Time Magazine ==

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

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

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

Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-23T18:13:39Z

71.74.209.82: reorg

{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]] [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|-
|
# [[Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 1|August 2006 – August 2006]]
# 
#
|}

== Citizenship granted by court ==

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

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

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

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

::"The term Anchor Baby is pejorative" may be relevant to whether the name of that article should be changed, but it isn't relevant to whether the content of that article (and of the relevant material in the 14th amendment article) should be combined with the same material in this article and ONE article created from it. "If the citezenship status of peoplo born un the USA (to illegal ot to legal resident parents) is a legal issue we must have a discussion in the artlicle" NOT true as is evidenced by the fact that we've already done the same thing with other content in the article.
Incidently, maintaining three different pages with the same content creates what is called a content fork (see [[Wikipedia:Content forking]]). From that page, "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject..content forks ..are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies."[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

== login 68.223.158.169 ==

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

Wow! Wasting way toooo much time here. It's me. Now I'm logged in[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 04:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

:unverifiable

::Dear Anon. Please revert this change. Here the source "according to the [Pew Hispanic Center] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. Further, by 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53]. If the numbers are down then the fear that illegas are "pouring over our borders" is unfounded. Thank you. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

this article isn't about legal immigration

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

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

:Please get a [[Special:Userlogin|username]], as your ISP is generating dymanic IP addresses and it is quite impossible to follow your edits. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

weasel words

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

unsourced

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

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

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

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

weasel words

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

no source

== Anon edits ==

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

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

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

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

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

:::::Among other things, it is forbiddden to use different IP addresses to avoid the 3RR. In order to bettre identify who is who, we may have to start identifying those IPs which appear to belong to a single user, and to come up with a name for that user. You can pick one yourself or we can do it. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::This user has been warned already several times about disruption related to this article:
:::::*Three times as [[User_Talk:71.74.209.82]]
:::::*Twice as [[User talk:198.97.67.58]]
:::::*Twice as [[User talk:198.97.67.57]]
::::: On this basis alone, this editor IP addresses may be blocked for disruption. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

::"Look 71.74.209.82, you have been warned seven times already about disruptive edits to this article." You tried an WP:RFFP calling me disruptive and it was immediately turned down. Now you are being petulent.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If at all, I would be petulant, not petulent. Nevertheless, VoiceofAll will hopefully review the situation, as it is clear now that you have engaged in disruptive behavior from at least three IP addresses. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::::No problems. I will place a request at [[WP:ANI]], so other admins can look at this issue. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

::What a load of bullshit. If anyone tells you that you need to register, report it to the admin noticeboard. You don't need to register, some editors are just talking shit here. {{unsigned|Tess Tickle}}

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

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

:You can use these templates to request a conversation about mergin articles:
:*{{tl|mergeto}} - add a <tt>{<nowiki>{mergeto|PRUCOL}}</nowiki></tt>, for example to the [[Anchor baby]] article
:*{{tl|mergefrom}} - add a <tt><nowiki>{{mergefrom|Anchor bab}}</nowiki></tt>, for example to the [[PRUCOL]] article
:Concerning your last edit, please summarize the Pew Hspanic report cite text you added rather that pasting full quotes. Yoy can have a full quote as a footnote. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

==Renew America==
The direct quote from Renew America in which it defines itself was replaced with something which I have no idea where it came from. Why replace a direct quote with something the editor seems to have made up?[[User:198.97.67.59|198.97.67.59]] 11:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you look at the edit summary, you will see where it comes from: the description metatag text of the website's home page. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
::And how is that suppossed to be sourced in the article?[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::By the use of {{tl|cite web}} [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

==Renew America copyright violation==
Currently we are using a full paragraph from the Renew America web site, specifically the article titled: Mexican government running US immigration policy--Part III[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713], last paragraph on the page. The over all article is approximately 1954 words in length, of which this article is using approximately 195 words, or 10% of the total article. 10% of someone else’s article is not fair use by any definition that I can find. Part of the text is used in - Illegal border crossing-, and the other part is used in - Use of military to patrol border-.

[[Wikipedia:Fair use]] lists for text: 

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

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

[[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 11:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:Please delete the offending text. Thanks for spotting it. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 15:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::Obviously it needs to be fixed. The problem is that, on one hand, we should quote people whenever discussing their position and on the other hand, we can't quote too much without risking copyright infringement. So, how much needs to be cut to avoid copytright infringement?[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:::You can summarize the quote in the body of the article and then link to a footnote in which a short quote can be added. That is, of course, if the quote is attributed to a notable/reliable source. See [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:CITE]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::::See [[fair use]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 23:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::According to that link, "it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy". The intent in this article was not to supersede the use of the orginal work or to substitute the review of it. So, there's no basis for saying that 10% is too much[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

==It follows that…==
This section is clearly violates Wikipedia’s policy on Original Research - [[Wikipedia:No original research]]:

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

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

The policy in a nut shell is stated as:

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

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

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

==Deletion of unsourced content==

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

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

has been deleted because it is unsourced[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 14:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

==ACLU position paper==
An [[ACLU]] position paper "The Rights of Immigrants" cites a study by the [[Urban Institute]] in which it is stated that immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services. <ref>ACLU, ''The Rights of Immigrants -ACLU Position Paper (9/8/2000)'', [http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11713pub20000908.html available online] "The Urban Institute has concluded that "immigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services." This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. In fact, immigrants pay substantially more in taxes every year than they receive in welfare benefits. "</ref>
That study [http://www.urban.org/Publications/411338.html] focused on Washington DC and, so, did not factor in the effect at the state and community level and focused on immigrants who are mostly wealthy and not illegal immigrants. It is not connected with the subject of this article.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:Not so (my highlights):
:*"The metropolitan area is relatively affluent and boasts a strong economy that attracts large numbers of immigrants for jobs '''at both the high- and low-skilled ends of the labor market'''"
:* "Troughout the report we refer to households headed by immigrants ('''whether citizens, legal immigrants, or unauthorized migrants''') as “immigrant households” and compare their incomes and tax payments to households headed by native-born U.S. citizens."

:You can add that the study was done in Washington DC, if so you wish. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

::::All references are provided. These sources include POVs on the subject and relevant. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Please refrain from adding uour own commentary on sources. From [[WP:NOR]] (my highlights):
::::::"Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, '''articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments''', concepts, data, ideas, or statements '''that serves to advance a position'''". [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:Well, if you are going to do it anyway, then I'll just go ahead and delete the stuff now.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 01:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Request for comment placed at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Economy_and_trade]] [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

==[[Urban Institute]] study deletion==
Why was the citation from Urban Insititute deleted? It addresses undocumented workers. See below (my highlight). Are "undocumented workers" not "illegal immigrants"?[[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

*The link to the study is [http://www.example.com here]. It is titled, "Civic Contributions: Taxes paid by Immigrants in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area". It has one reference to "illegal immigration" (it is quoted in the RfC). It has three references to "Undocumented" and they are "The share of immigrants who were legal permanent residents (LPRs) in 2000 (27 percent) was nearly the same as the unocumented share and again matched the national pattern."
* "Grant temporary or permanent work authorization to undocumented immigrants"
*"Salvadorans we classified as undocumented"
[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 02:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

::It seems, then, that the article is relevant. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== PRUCOL ==

I removed the mention PRUCOL under "Citizenship and the children of immigrants". It had a [citation needed] for a few days an noboby provided support for the statement. 
According to the Department of Labor, in defining who is and isn't elegible for unemployment compensation they define PRUCOL as:
:Quote. The phrase "permanently residing in the United States under color of law" applies only to the following classes of aliens:

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

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

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

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

For more information see "UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 01-86, Change 1" (2/16/89)
[http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl86/uipl_0186c1.htm]. It has nothing to do with children born to undocumented workers.

[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 20:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== RFC Summary ==

An editor is arguing for the deletion of sourced material, based on his assertion that the material is not relevant to this article as it is not directly related to "illegal immigration". The editor that added the material, asserts that it is relevant and provides context. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=68308447&oldid=68306164 Diff]]

; Comments by involved editors
:The material that is being deleted is relevant to this article as it provides context to the illegal immigration debate. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:To support the view that illegal immigrants do not have a negative affect on the economy, Jossi added an article to an ACLU article on immigration (not specifically illegal immigration) which referred to an Urban Institute study which stated the following "We find no substantial differences in the average tax payments or share of income paid in taxes between natives and immigrants, with one important exception: the unauthorized population." which is the opposite of how Jossi attempted to use the article. It is clear from this example that we cannot assume that the findings of studies on immigration necessarily translate to illegal immigration. As a result, we must ensure that studies in this article specifically state that they include illegal immigration.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 01:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::That study addresses undocumented workers and their tax contribution to the economy. See [[#Urban_Institute_study_deletion]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, and it says the opposite of what you claim it says. It makes clear that the economics of legal immigration do not translate to the ecoomics of illegal immigration so we need to use studies which specifically focus on illegal immigration.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 02:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:::That in itself makes it a good source. You could add a citation ot that effect, as well as to include that "'immigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services.' This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. In fact, immigrants pay substantially more in taxes every year than they receive in welfare benefits". [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 02:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::::If you are willing to acknowledge that studies on immigration don't necessarily translate to illegal immigration (and, so, stop treating studies on immigration as if they do in the article), I have no problem putting in the article this example of how that's the case.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 02:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::The problem is that studies about immigration in the US include both legal and illegal immigration, as both are intrinsically linked. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::We need to assume that's true only when they specifically say so, else that assumpton constitutes original research - especially in light of the fact that we already have sources which show that the economics of legal immigration and illegal immigration are different.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

; Comments by editors responding to this RfC
* - In my view, the information is relevant and it should be "present", if not in this article in another. I believe Psycohistorian has a point when he says that they aren't directly related to illegal immigration. What I read seems to refer to all kinds of immigration, what means it also refers to illegal immigration, so it makes sense to have it here. Perhaps the solution would be to identify the specific points described by the articles and analyse if them apply or not to illegal immigration. Pointing the differences between the legal and illegal variants could be very interesting. [[User:MJGR|MJGR]] 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::The problem with that, however, is that several of the sources which are presented make clear that their findings do not translate to illegal immigration. Also, a comparison between illegal and legal immigration should be in the general [[Immigration in the United States]] article, not here.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If Psycohistorian is right and some sources do not translate to illegal immigration I believe it's correct to remove them from this article and place them in the general article [[Immigration in the United States]]. Probably a reference in this article to the "general" entry and the comparison between immigration variants would be useful. Perhaps a solution would be to state clearly why both of you believe that every cited source is related explicitly to illegal immigration or not. [[User:MJGR|MJGR]] 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
* -
:Stating clearly why both of us believe that every cited source is related explicitly to illegal immigration or not is a very good idea. But if there is no comment in the discussion page on it, I should be allowed to follow policy and remove it. Also, if there are studies which state that they are covering illegal immigration and they conflict with other studies which throw all immigration into a common pot, it should be made clear that the general article on immigration should not have the same level of significance as the article on illegal immigration in the context of illegal immigration.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 11:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

==Rand Study deletion==
"please do not add commentary, in particular when it is incorrect. The book in question discusses immigration including illegal"
provide evidence of that or the comment will be returned to the article.{{unsigned|Psychohistorian}}

:Read the book. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:There is a complaint about your behavior at [[WP:ANI#User_talk:71.74.209.82]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 02:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

:As per your deletions, which prompted my warnings on your page, please do not delete material that is properly sourced. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 02:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

::I am lodging a formal complaint which cant be done from WP:ANI. Do you agree to arbitration or should I just elevate the issue beyond that?[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 02:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:::As I said in my talk page, Arbitration is the last resort in [[WP:DP]]. You may lodge a complaint at [[WP:ANI]], if you believe it is related to my duties as an administrator of Wikipedia. By the way, and before I make a request for checkuser to confirm this, are 71.74.209.82 and you the same person? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 02:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, 71.74.209.82 and I are the same person.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 02:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::::Because it wasn't relevant to the economics issue[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 03:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

OK. What about this. We give [[amnesty]] to each other, [[tabula rasa]], and start afresh? OK? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]]

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

::I understand from the above that you reject my offer. Well, at least I tried. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 13:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== Border crossing ==

The section about alleged abuses by the border patrol, is more appropriate to be located in the section about "Border crossing". [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:::I kindly request that you restore that text to the appropriate section. ''''I refuse to editwar with you'''. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

::::It is where it should be. Its nice that you aren't going to editwar any more, but that doesn't mean that I have to do something which I think lowers the quality of the article.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 03:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::::: No. It is not. The legal section has nothing to do with that material. Allegation of abuses at the border, need to be locate in the section that discusses the border. And when I said I do not want to edit war with you, I mean that I refuse to be drawn into useless edit wars, as the ones you are attempting to instigate with your deletions, moving around materials, etc. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 04:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

:Is not that obvious? Nevertheless, maybe you can find a better place in this article for that material. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 19:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Illegal border crossing section ==

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

==Borer Patrol abuse==
I recommend that "Allegations of Border Patrol abuse

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

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

:No. The material is related to this article. '''Please do not delete properly sourced material''' [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 02:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Zogby ==

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

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

::I am not insinuating anything. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

::I don't think so..
::# A "merge" was discussed, that means combining the two articles into one
::# The merge was proposed by you, but not agreed to. You need to ask for consensus for such merge.
::Please revert. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Note that there is no consensus for such merge'''. You are doing this unilateraly and that is not acceptable. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

::Border patrol abuse of illegals is a criminal act. An editorial states an opinion about an article, the statement about complaints not being the same as proven incidences is a statement of fact, not an editorial. If it were stated as "these are complaints, not proven incidences, and should be dismissed", that would be an editorial. I changed the wording regarding "despite" to address the problem you have there.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 19:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
:::"Border patrol abuse of illegals is a criminal act". Maybe. We are talking here of specific allegations of abuse. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

====Format and refs====
Please use the proper format for these ({{tl|cite web}}. Thanks [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 01:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
*[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_re_us/border_patrol_corruption_1 Border agent gets 5 years for smuggling]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051003-122319-3501r.htm U.S. probes 'green cards for sex']
*[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/94491.php Border agent pleads guilty to harboring illegal entrant]
*[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20050805-9999-7m5agent.html Border agent said to also be smuggler]
*[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/81082.php Border agent accused of hiding an illegal entrant]
*[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/65117.php U.S. border agent indicted]

==Immigration with and without quotas==
Why is this section, which clearly discusses the history of quotas, not being left in the history section?[[User:198.97.67.59|198.97.67.59]] 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Absolutely. As per Wikipedia content policies, significant views described in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] either pro or con, can and should be included. All other material, should be mercilessly deleted. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

== Edits ==

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

[[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 03:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

== Study ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::::There are a very few statements in that article which do fall within the scope here. Some of them are as follows, "The share of the foreign-born population who are illegal aliens has risen steadily. Illegal aliens made up 21 percent of the foreign-born in 1980, 25 percent in 2000, and 28 percent in 2005." "Anchor babies" provide[s] opportunities for many aliens to plant roots in the United States. Those aliens might not otherwise have done so." "In the 1980s ..the nation absorbed .., by most estimates, at least 2 million illegal [immigrants]. " "A Congressional Research Service report from 1977 indicates that INS estimates of the illegal alien population in the mid-1970s ranged from 1 million to 12 million. CRS cites a Cabinet-level task force, which concluded that "hard data on illegal aliens is virtually non-existent." Many citations of the mid-20th century decades seemed to extrapolate from the number of deportable aliens apprehended. See Joyce Vialet, "Illegal Aliens: Analysis and Background," (77-47 ED), Congressional Research Service, February 16, 1977."
But its like picking a needle out of a haystack.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 15:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

== Population Size ==

Under the IP 74.225.89.228 (sorry forgot to sign in) i did a major rewrite of the section on population size. Including formating most of the references. The section now reads as a single article instead of a tug of war between two sides. I hope we can all use this to move forward; please do not simply roll back this effort; add to it! Thank you. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 08:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:Looks good to me. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 12:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

:::The end result is pretty good. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::::In your opinion. It is easy to see, however, that it buries relevant material deep within redundant material.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 14:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::What material is redundant? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::Most of the content in that section is redundant with [[Anchor baby]] or the article on the 14th Amendment.
::::::By the way, there was a massive amount of sourced data which was removed from the article by Morlesg without explanation (for example, the table on remitances, the detail on how the illegal immigration pop is calculated, and there's a -lot- more.). He also didn't follow the custom of tagging unsourced content and waiting a week before removing it. I'm going to have to go back through his twenty or so edits and piece the article back together from his damage. That's going to take a couple of hours I suspect.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 15:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

:::If that is the issue, then re-add the material that was lost rather than reverting. That is called collaboratve editing. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 20:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

*The original article states, "foreign born residents particularly illegal immigrants" and was changed by Morlsg to "illegal immigrants". It was done without explanation and means something completely different given that foreign born residents may be legal immigrants. There's no 100% overlap there.
::The way it was written had two problems: (1) Why would foreign born Legal residenta have any "possible reasons for not reporting their presence" they are in the US lebally and have nothing to fear; and (2) I did leave the comment on census under reportin foreign born illegals because the explanation made sense. Maybe I should have taken it out as it was unsourced. In fact, what "language and communication problems" could there be if the census forms are available in Spanish (and other languages)??[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
*"at a more-or-less steady rate" was removed by Morlsg without explanation. It is information which is well sourced and relevant (changes in rate are as important as rate of change itself). Again, he gave no explanation.
::Sorry, I did not see "more-or-less steady rate" in the original article and found the words to be (to borrow a term you have used in the past) weasel words. Maybe if you had quoted the grouth number or the growth rate from the source it would have looked better. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
*The remittances table was deleted because, it was claimed, the information was already in the article. But, as one can easily see, it is not.
::The table is not included in the original Bear Stearn article. The way it was written claimed to be quoting information from the Mexican Central Bank website and that was a .... (to use a kind word) mistake. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
*Morlsg claimed that the article which makes an arguement for illegal immigration being twice as high as the official figures suggest does not actually prove that the correct number is around 20 million. He's right after a fashion. The article explains in detail its argueemnt for why the actual number is twice the official number and the official number is 9 million and it states that the number may be as high as 20 million.
::For once I'm right. Thank you.[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
*An exploration of the history of remittances by illegals is relevant to the article and was sourced but was removed by Morlsg without explanation.
::Sorry, I removed an explanation of the change in remittance data that was editorialized to explain why the data did not match the intended argument. There is an article on remittances where you can include all the history. As remittances are done by most immigrants and not only by illegals it's importance to this topic may be secondary. But by all means include it in the right place. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 22:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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

== Remittances ==

The published Bear Stearn report does not present the methodology to go from the growth of remitances to the growth of illegals. At least I could not see it after several readings, but I may have missed it. How do the researchers account for which % of the remittances is done by Mexican Americans legaly living in the US and what % is done by illegals??. Maybe the reason it's not in the report is because it cannot be done. Get this scenario: the number of illegal immigrants stays the same; but because the legal immigrants are getting richer they are increasing the amount they send back. That could account for the increase in remittances.
Anyway, if we are talking about finance the source is fantastic; but just because someone likes the numbres it does not make them better numbres that the "oficial" numbres from the US government. Oh yes! I removed the reference (editorial) that Homeland Security had given up on estimating a number because it was too hard!!
Sorry, I'm ranting. I need a clarification on the remittance data presented in the table. It was my understanding that, this being an encyclopedic article, we were not in the business of creating original content. Pasting togethjer data from many different sources to make it appear as if the BS (sorry, Bear Stearns) investigators actually present data to support their conclussions does not seem to be the correct practice. Should the table be removed? Thank you. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::No disrespect was intended. I was and am concerned only with the end result and you removed a lot of sourced and relevant content without explanation. Let me remind you that I found most of your edits justifiable and I left them in. For example, you just mentioned that you removed the statement about Homeland Security finding it too hard to get actual numbers. If you look at the changes I did, you'll see that I didn't put that statement back in the article. Let me say the same thing to you that I did to Jossi. Before you criticize the work I did, make sure you at least read the article in its present form. I spent an hour and a half looking at your edits because I knew you had good intent and I didn't want to undo anything positive that you did. But, having said that, noone said that the Bear Stearn numbers were better than the Homeland Security numbers. Providing numbers from as many significant studies as possible does make sense. We can have both the Homeland Security numbers and the Bear Stearn. We can point out that the Bear Stearn numbers are independently confirmed with the PEW studies.
Yes, lets focus on building the best article possible. I have never, to the best of my knowledge, removed data which met all the following criteria 1.) focused on illegal immigration 2.) was sourced 3.) was from a non-advocacy source which explained how they got their data AND 4.) was pro-illegal immigration. I know I've never done it without comment.
Almost none of your edits that I was objecting to had any comment as to why they were being done until now.
"The table is not included in the original Bear Stearn article." This was one of the few edits you did which did have comment and you stated that it was removed because the data existed elsewhere in the article, not that it wasn't included in the original Bear Stearn article.
"Sorry, I did not see "more-or-less steady rate" One can easily see that by eyeballing the remittances table from the Bank of Mexico.
I'll give a more detailed reply later today.[[User:Psychohistorian|Psychohistorian]] 12:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

:You say: '' I have never, to the best of my knowledge, removed data which met all the following criteria 1.) focused on illegal immigration 2.) was sourced 3.) was from a non-advocacy source which explained how they got their data AND 4.) was pro-illegal immigration. ''
:Material in Wikipedia articles do not follow the "standard" you have created, it follows [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]].
:*If material is "pro" ilegal immigration, it can be included if it is described by a secondary reliable source, same for "anti" illegal immigration.
:*If material is from an advocacy either pro or con, and their viewpoints are significant, these can be included as well, providing of course, that there are reliable secondary sources that describe them
:* Arriving to a decision about which material is pertinet in wich material is not, is for editors to reach consensus about.
:I would suggest that you take these issue in ind when you do your edits. It will save a lot of time and aggravation. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

== Overview and numbers ==

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

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

== Citing ==

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

That is what we are doing with all the sources: summarizing the viewpoint and attributing them. The article in its entirety is online here [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995145-5,00.html here] [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 04:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== reasons to emigrate to the U. S. ==

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

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

Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-23T18:06:41Z

71.74.209.82: reorg (see discussion)

'''Illegal immigration to the United States''' refers to the migration of people across the [[border|national borders]] of the [[United States]] that is in violation of U.S. [[Immigration law|immigration]] and [[United States nationality law|nationality law]]. The terms ''illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented alien, undocumented immigrant'', and ''undocumented worker'', are common terms used to refer to persons residing in the United States without either U.S. [[citizenship]] or a valid immigration status. <ref>The [[Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS) defines unauthorized immigrants as “foreign-born persons who entered without inspection or who violated the terms of a temporary admission and who have not acquired Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status or gained temporary protection against removal by applying for an immigration benefit. For example, the following foreign-born persons are not considered to be unauthorized residents in these estimates: refugees, asylees, and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and aliens who are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings. [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf]</ref>.
In the United States the term ‘’undocumented alien’’ typically refers to a foreign national who entered the country without valid travel documents or who overstayed the limited period of time granted upon entry. For example, a tourist who enters with a valid [B1 visa] and is granted a stay of 15 days and remains in-country for 30 days is an ‘’undocumented alien’’. The holder of a valid B1 (tourist) visa is barred from accepting employment. By accepting employment this hypothetical tourist becomes an ‘’undocumented worker’’ (whether he is an ‘’undocumented alien’’ or not). Technically, those who do not work are not "undocumented workers"; however, the term is often used to encompass all unauthorized individuals, including children, the elderly, and those who cannot or do not work.

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrants Info||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Education Profile||Number||Percent||
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Less then 12 yr.||align="right"|6,700,000||67.0%||
|-
!align="right"|High School||align="right"|3,000,000||30.0%||
|-
!align="right"|College Graduate||align="right"|300,000||3.0%||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Total Illegal Pop.||align="right"|12,000,000 ||Jan 2006||
|-
!align="right"|Total Working||align="right"|7,500,000
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Caught|| align="right"|202,842||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Deported|| align="right"|88,895||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Caught and Released|| align="right"|1,010,000+||2005||
|-
!align="right"|Illegal Immigrants/year|| align="right"|1,500,000+||Total||
|-
!align="right"|Voluntary returns/year||align="right"| - 200,000+||2005
|-
!align="right"|Change of Status/year||align="right"| - 600,000+||2005
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Net Increase/year||align="right"| 700,000+||Illegal Immigrants||
|-
|colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] A Description of the Immigrant Population [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2] 
|}

===Illegal immigration overview===
According to a 2002 Zogby International poll, "58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Zogby said 28 percent disagreed, while another 14 percent said they weren't sure.
Meanwhile, a similar number – 57 percent – agreed that "Mexicans should have the right to enter the U.S. without U.S. permission," while 35 percent disagreed and 7 percent were unsure. " [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27941] In the 2001-2006 National Development Plan the [[Politics of Mexico|Mexican Government]] says they want to support the 18 million Mexicans who live outside Mexico. There is no information on this report on the source of the data or on the number of those immigrants living in the United States<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://pnd.presidencia.gob.mx/pdf/PND_%201-3.pdf
|title=Plan Nacional De Desarrollo 2001-2006
|publisher= Presidencia De La República, Gobierno de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos
|date=2001
|page=28
|language=Spanish
}}</ref>

Welfare reform stimulated no mass exodus of unauthorized migrants, and there was no let-up in the massive wave of new immigration occurring in the second half of the 1990s. Despite over 60% of the American public claiming they want to curb illegal immigration Congress is unable to agree on doing anything.

Professor Wayne A. Cornelius, (U.C. Davis) summed up the problems of illegal [http://polisci.ucsd.edu/faculty/cornelius.htm] U. S, immigration [http://www.cri.uci.edu/pdf/JEMS--final.pdf (Controlling ‘Unwanted’ Immigration)]
“Consequences predicted by advocates of the concentrated border enforcement strategy have not yet materialized: there is no evidence that unauthorized migration is being deterred at the point of origin; that would-be illegal entrants are being discouraged at the border after multiple apprehensions by the Border Patrol and returning home; that their employment prospects in the US have been curtailed; or that the resident population of undocumented immigrants is shrinking”

===Size of illegal immigrant population===

The actual number of illegal immigrants is unknown and controversial. There are no national surveys, administrative data, or other sources of information that directly provide accurate estimates of this population<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/ILL_PE_2005.pdf
|title= Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2005
|author= MICHAEL HOEFER
|coauthor= NANCY RYTINA
|coauthor= CHRISTOPHER CAMPBELL
|publisher=US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate
|date=August 2006
|page=1
}}</ref>.

Investigative journalists Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, state in Time magazine in its September 12, 2004 issue, "It's fair to estimate, based on a Time magazine investigation, that the number of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. this year will total 3 million - enought to fill 22,000 Boeing 737-700 airliners, or 60 flights every day for a year."

The basic method of estimating this population is called the “residual method” where the reported census number of self proclaimed foreign born people in the U.S. census is subtracted from the known number of legal immigrants to obtain the illegal immigrant population<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/46.pdf
|title=Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics
|author=Jeffrey S. Passel
|publisher=Pew Hispanic Center
|date=June 2005
|page=7
}}</ref>. This methodology is used by the [[United States Department of Homeland Security|US Department of Homeland Security]], [[Pew Hispanic Center]], the [[Census Bureau]] and others. Detractors of this methodology argue that this uncorrected subtraction gives too small a number of illegal immigrants because of significant census under reporting of foreign born residents particularly illegal immigrants who have many possible reasons for not reporting their presence (including language and communication problems) and no penalties for incorrect census replies.{{fact}}.

Using the residual methodology and data from the March 2004 Current Population Survey (U.S. Census Bureau and Department of Labor) Pew came up with 10.3 million illegal immigrants in 2004. Assuming the same rate of growth Pew estimates this population reached nearly 11 million as of March 2005
<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf
|title=Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population
|author=Jeffrey S. Passel
|publisher=Pew Hispanic Center
|date=March 21, 2005
}}</ref>. Pew corrects the pure residual result by 10% stating that some migrants have legal authorization to live and work in the United States on a temporary basis
<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2899
|title=Sidebar: Birth of a Factoid
|author=Saurav Sarkar
|publisher=Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
|date=May/June 2006
}}</ref>.

The Pew Hispanic Center [http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf (Estimating the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population; Figure 3) ] estimates that in the 1980’s net illegal immigration was at the 130,000 per year increasing to 450,000 /year from 1990-94, and further increasing to 750,000 /year from 1995-1999 and staying at 700,000+ /year since about 2000. Illegal Mexican immigration amounts to about 500,000 /year of this influx. According to the same [[Pew Hispanic Center]] study as of March 2005, the illegal immigrant population had reached nearly 12 million including more than 6 million Mexicans. Assuming the same rate of growth as in recent years. Adding the expected increases since 2005 gives about 12,000,000 illegal immigrants in the United States with illegal Mexicans amounting to about 60% of the total by 2006. About one-sixth of the illegal immigrant population—about 2.0 million people— is under 18 years of age.

The number of Mexican immigrants in the United States has grown quite rapidly over the
past 35 years, increasing almost 15-fold from about 760,000 in the 1970 Census to more than 11 million in 2004—an average annual growth rate of more than 8 percent, maintained over more than 3 decades. This remarkable growth has been largely driven by illegal immigration. On average the net Mexican population living in the United States has grown by about half a million people a year over the past decade. About 80 to 85 percent of the immigration from Mexico in recent years has been illegal. [http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf (Pew report Figure 4 and page 2)]

After 2000 the estimation of the growth becomes more difficult beacuse of a lack of good information. The rate of growth of the illegal population is estimated with the Consumer Price Survey data [2004] which suffers from the same under counting problems of the Census plus the problem of a much smaller statistical sample of only 10-20,000. Its accuracy may well be suspect for lack of a truly representative "random" sample. Using these techniques Pew comes up with from 11.5 – 12 million illegal immigrants in 2006 with a growth rate of 700,000 to 850,000 net illegal immigrants per year. This is the so called "consensus" number used by most reporters. The unstated cummulative error in total illegal immigrants by 2006 could easily be an additional 8 million illegal immigrants or more and the error in the growth rate since 2000 could also be very large but again is unstated by Pew and others. There is a high probability of the illegal immigrant population's size in 2006 being significantly larger than predicted as all additional information points to a significant increase (300+ %) in illegal immigration rates after 2000. Bottom line, the number of illegal immigrants reported may well be a minimum estimate and their growth rate could easily be a lot more than is commonly reported—we just don’t know for sure. {{fact}}

The Office of Immigration Statistics in the Department of Homeland Security estimates that 10.5 million illegal immigrants were living in the United States in January 2005 and that the number grew at a national average of 408,000 a year.

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Mexican Remittances and Illegal Population Growth||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Year||* Remittances Billions||Remittances % Increase per year||Illegal ** Mexicans Millions||Illegal Increase thous./yr||Pew *** est. thous./yr
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|1995||3,673||||3.000|| ||
|-
!align=“right”|1996||4,224||15.0%||3.450||450||400
|-
!align=“right”|1997||4,865||15.2%||3.974||524||400
|-
!align=“right”|1998||4,744||-2.5%||3.875||-99||400
|-
!align=“right”|1999||5,910||24.6%||4.827||952||400
|-
!align=“right”|2000||6,573||11.2%||5.369||542||500
|-
!align=“right”|2001||8,895||35.3%||7.265||1,897||500
|-
!align=“right”|2002||9,814||10.3%||8.016||751||500
|-
!align=“right”|2003||13,396||36.5%||10.941||2,926||500
|-
!align=“right”|2004||16,613||24.0%||13.569||2,628||500
|-
!align=“right”|2005||20,035||20.6%||16.364||2,795||500
|-
!align=“right”|Non-Mex. ||||||4.0 to 6.0|| ||
|-
|colspan=6|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Total||illegal||immigrants||20.0 to 22.0||million ||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>
|-
|colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| Assumes the amount of remittances from the U.S. is proportional to the number of Mexican's living in the U.S. As can be seen the Pew and Bear Stern numbers are in basic agreement to about 2000 '''Sources:''' * Banco de Mexico[http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPAYMENTREMMITTANCE/Resources/BancodeMexicoRicardoMedina.pdf] ** Bear Stern’s investigators [http://www.bearstearns.com/bscportal/pdfs/underground.pdf] *** Pew data [http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] 
|}Bear Stern’s investigators <ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.bearstearns.com/bscportal/pdfs/underground.pdf
|title= The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface
|autor= Robert Justich
|coauthor= Betty Ng
|publisher= Bear Sterns Asset Management
|date= January 3, 2005
}}</ref> came up with another way to attack this very difficult problem. They made the assumption that the amount of [[remittances]] (money sent back to Mexico) is directly proportional to the number of Mexican immigrants in the United States. Other data used for their estimates are the increases of households and school enrollment in Mexican immigrant communities. They conclude that the number of illegal immigrants in the United States is around twice the official number of 9 million and may be 20 million people or higher. A web document claiming to come from [[Banco de Mexico|The Mexican Central Bank]] details the remittances and shows their growth [http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPAYMENTREMMITTANCE/Resources/BancodeMexicoRicardoMedina.pdf]. According to that data, remittances stayed fairly stable until 2000 when a steady and dramatic increase began. The change in remittances between 1998 and 1999 is most likely a problem in accounting--the two year average is still about 450 thousand consistent with other data. The agreement with the Pew estimate is reasonably good up to 2001 where there is a significant difference--just where the Pew data becomes harder to extrapolate. Using this technique Bear Sterns investigators come up with a possible illegal population of 20 million or greater. (See figure for calculation) Other data confirming their estimates are the dramatic increases of households and school enrollment in Mexican immigrant communities (read their report for more details). Border Arrest data do not show this dramatic increase in apprehensions so how could all these new illegal immigraants have gotten here? A possible answer is simple--many of them simply drove to the United States on shopping trips that included new jobs and a new home and "forgot" to return to Mexico. According to the Bureau and Transportaion statistics [[http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/border_crossing_entry_data/us_mexico/index.html]there are over 200,000,000 "legal" border crossing from Mexico each year, ~80% by automobile. If only one percent kept on going plus the numbers that walk across the border and its easy to get the number of illegal immigrants projected and the lack of interior enforcement says they have a good chance of getting away with it.

The number of illegal immigrants emigrating [leaving] the U.S. is estimated at about 240,000 /year (~20% of illegal population) [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2]

Various investigators have estimated the census foreign born under count at 10-40% or 3-12 million{{fact}}.

The Census Bureau estimated 7 million illegal immigrants in 2000{{fact}}.

==Methods used to enter the U.S. illegally==

====Illegal border crossing====
{{sectNPOV}}

[[Image:ElPaso-Juarez-EO.JPG|thumb|right|200px|El Paso (top) and Ciudad Juárez (bottom) seen from earth orbit; the Rio Grande is the thin line separating the two cities through the middle of the photograph.]]
[[Image:TJ Border Beach.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Beach at Border Field State Park near [[San Ysidro, California]]. (Tire tracks from Border Patrol jeeps are visible on the beach.)]]
That Pew Hispanic article goes on to state, "The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."
[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]
meaning that they crossed a border without passing possible criminal or health inspection or having a valid passport and [[Visa (document)|visa]] inspected by an immigration officer at a Port of Entry (POE). According to a Time magazine report (dated Sept 12, 2004), "They turn the land to a vast latrine, leaving behind revolting mounds of personal refuse..They steal vehicles..They poison dogs to quiet them."<ref>The full quote is as follows "When the crowds cross the ranches along and near the border, they discard backpacks, empty Gatorade and water bottles and soiled clothes. They turn the land into a vast latrine, leaving behind revolting mounds of personal refuse and enough discarded plastic bags to stock a Wal-Mart. Night after night, they cut fences intended to hold in cattle and horses. Cows that eat the bags must often by killed because the plastic becomes lodged between the first and second stomachs. The immigrants steal vehicles and saddles. They poison dogs to quiet them. The illegal traffic is so heavy that some ranchers, because of the disruptions and noise, get very little sleep at night."</ref>

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a [[misdemeanor]] for the first offense and a [[felony]] for subsequent violations{{fact}}. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the future{{fact}}. Immigrants who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. [[H.R. 4437]] would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

“A growing number of illegal aliens who cross our land borders arrive under the auspices of sophisticated alien smuggling operations, often connected to organized crime.” [http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM]<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/ILL_PE_2005.pdf
|title= Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2005
|author= MICHAEL HOEFER
|coauthor= NANCY RYTINA
|coauthor= CHRISTOPHER CAMPBELL
|publisher=US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate
|date=August 2006
}}</ref> According to a report by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary on 1997, "Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling."<ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM ORDER SECURITY AND DETERRING ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary</ref>
Another large scale multi-million dollar criminal operations connected to illegal immigration is identity theft. [http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html]
The higher crime rates associated with all this traffic has led to extensive efforts on the part of individual sheriffs and communities trying to prevent further damage to their property and communities. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html], [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html], [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss], [[http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]

Border Patrol activity is concentrated around big border cities such as [[San Diego, California|San Diego]] and [[El Paso, Texas|El Paso]] which already have [[separation barriers]] and extensive Border Agent coverage. The main effect has been to drive illegal immigration to less well defended parts of the border and drive the cost of illegal immigration up as more and more illegal immigrants employ expensive “Coyotes” and their criminal associates. Some of the traffic has spread away from the dangerous Tucson districts deserts where over a hundred illegal immigrants have died so far this year compared to 153 in 2005. [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060722/images/border.pdf] In 2006 the number of apprehensions on the border is almost the same as last year through 16 July 2006 at 936,000 [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20060722-9999-1n22crossers.html ]. However, according to many US Border Patrol agents, they were instructed by their leadership to "keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited" as one US Border Patrol agent put it [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm].

Each state in the United States has a [[United States National Guard|National Guard]] organization that could, in principal, be placed on the border at a state governor's discretion to assist with border security; many states also have a backup to the National Gurard called the [[State Defense Force]] that could, in an emergency, also be activated for this purpose. Arizona and New Mexico have currently declared the counties that border [[Mexico]] to be under serious duress caused by uncontrolled illegal immigrant traffic, thereby enabling governors to deploy National Guardsmen to the international border. Arizona has exercised this option but New Mexico has not.

In an article published by Renew America, a website which defines itself as a "Alan Keyes' website for grassroots activism -- designed to foster a nationwide movement to restore America to its founding ideals", former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard asserts that "The whole U.S.-Mexico border could be sealed with as few as 100 helicopters equipped with FLIR (forward looking infrared) scopes, and a few hundred men equipped with state of the art sensors, scopes and other electronics..." [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]

In 2006 the Senate approved 370 miles of new double- and triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers and then refused to fund them. In December, the House voted for 700 miles of new barriers. Neither was able to reach a compromise bill. There is no assurance that if built, these new layers of protection will reduce the flow of illegal migrants from Mexico.

It is estimated that over a million people cross the border illegally each year, most of whom are of Mexican origin{fact}. The rest are labeled "Other Than Mexicans" (OTM), of whom a majority are [[Central America]]ns{fact}.

See also [[United States–Mexico border]], [[United States-Canada border]].

=====From countries with no visa agreements=====
Immigrants from nations that do not have automatic visa agreements, or who would not otherwise qualify for a visa, sometimes cross the borders illegally. Individuals from [[North Korea]], [[Libya]], [[Cuba]], [[Syria]], [[Sudan]], and [[Iran]] are required to submit to strict questioning from U.S. officials before their applications are processed. Their applications take longer to process than those for visitors and immigrants from other countries. [http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1300.html]

Often, these individuals enter from a land border using falsified documentation from a third country. For instance, [[Ahmed Ressam]], a member of [[Al Qaeda]], originally from [[Algeria]], entered [[Canada]] with a falsified [[France|French]] passport. Once in Canada, he procured a false Canadian passport to enter the United States. In the case of Cuba, the U.S. offers political asylum to many Cubans, but they first must reach U.S. soil. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//shows/trail/etc/fake.html]====Visa or Border Crossing Card overstayers====

A visa overstayer is someone who has entered the United States legally and then illegally overstayed his or her visa or violated the restrictions on Border Crossing Card (BCC) or laser visa. Fraudulent and forged visa and BCC passes are included in this category. An estimated average 40-60% of all illegal immigrants to the U.S. entered this way. The number of overstayers varies considerably from country to country depending on the location of the country, the cultural, political, social and economic conditions in a given country in a given time. The PEW Hispanic institute reported [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf] that the INS had developed statistics that showed 3.2% of all Central and South America visas are overstayed. A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study gives estimates for all countries showing that China, India, Korea, and the Philippines had violation rates as high as 8%.[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] In general the poorer the country they came from the more likely the foreign visitor was to violate their visa.

GAO estimated that 40-60% of all Mexican illegal immigrants got here by violating their border crossing document's conditions. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] In operation Tarmac where ICE and DHS checked airport employees for legal employment they found 27% of the over 4900 violators found were visa or BCC violators. In one of the rare ICE check ups on a grocery chain they found that over 57% of the several hundred violators were visa overstayers or BCC violators ([http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf| Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered Defense]) patrol officials believe Visa violator numbers would increase if it became more difficult to illegally sneak across the border as illegal border crossers switched techniques. About 33% of all Central American illegal immigrants came by overstaying their visa with the rest traveling through Mexico to reach the border and then crossing illegally. At lest 95+% of all illegal South American, European, and Asians got here by overstaying their visa. (The other ~5% represent illegal immigrants smuggled by ship or plane) An increasing number of illegal immigrants are now flying to Mexico or Canada and then crossing the border illegally by foot or car. The ICE agents on the border report a 52% increase in border violators caught that are Other Than Mexican (OTM). The two main sources of illegal visa violators are Mexico and Canada which the U.S. has a large amount of cross border traffic with. Other estimates done by the GAO show that the overstayers and BCC violators from Mexico alone in the year 2001 may exceed 2,000,000 /year. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/border_crossing_entry_data/us_mexico/index.html] reported that in 2003 (the last year of available statistics) there were 79,000,000 and 245,000,000 border crossings between Canada and Mexico respectively and the US. The tourist bureau shows that there were less Mexicans (as reported by their government) doing all this traffic than their were Canadians (as reported by their government).[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] Mexico has roughly three times the population of Canada. The latest ICE statistics show that they captured 30,000 Brazilians after they crossed the U.S. Mexican border illegally for the first time in 2004. Two of the terrorists behind the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] were visa overstayers. The federal government historically has not extensibly checked up on visa holders once they are in the country; but visa checks has been used extensively after 9 September 2001 to check up on illegal immigrants from countries with large populations sympathic to terrorists. Several hundred visa violators were deported and several thousand more left voluntarily rather than face deportation hearings. {{fact}}

To help improve the lack of good information on visa overstayers the new US-VISIT program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States as well as requiring electronic readable passports containing this information. Information collected is checked against lookout databases to ensure that known or suspected terrorists, criminals, and previous U.S. immigration law violators are not admitted. [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-11_Feb05.pdf] and then checked against their eventual departure. US-VISIT entry procedures have been operational in the secondary inspection areas of the 50 busiest land border ports of entry since December 29, 2004, and are also in place at 115 airports and 15 seaports.[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4858] Early in 2007 the DHS is hoping to replace the laser visa or boundary crossing cards with People Access Security Service (PASS) card, as a secure identity document for people traveling to or from Canada or Mexico. [http://www.thebta.org/syndicate/news/archives/cat_us-visit.html] These would include Radio Frequency Identification Data (RFID) for ease of transit and security.

Visa overstayers violators tend to be somewhat more educated and be better off financially than those who walked crossed the border illegally. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0205/p01s03-usju.html] The financial and education status of the thousands of BCC or laser visa violators is unknown; but is probably very similar to the illegal border crossers who walked across since they both come from the same population base.

One common means of visa overstaying is coming to the U.S. on a student visa and not going to school or not leaving the country after finishing school. [http://ktla.trb.com/la-me-visa22may22,0,2677069.story?coll=ktla-home-3] The number of foreign students in the United States is over 600,000.

==Government Response==
Staffing levels and priorities of finding illegal employers clearly reflect the low priority assigned to workplace enforcement by the Immigration services. Since 1986 the United States has had legislation that penalizes employers who knowingly hire unauthorized foreign workers, but enforcement of employer sanctions has always been at a token level. The provision of the 1986 law that provides sanctions for ‘knowingly’ hiring unauthorized immigrants contains no requirement that employers verify the authenticity of documents presented by job applicants. To reduce the magnet of US jobs, more vigorous worksite enforcement aimed at larger employers would have to be coupled with systematic efforts to remove unauthorized immigrants found to be employed by such firms from the labor market and the country. Without such ‘removal’ efforts, targeted workplace enforcement simply scatters unauthorized workers to other employers and industries. [http://www.cri.uci.edu/pdf/JEMS--final.pdf]

Both through the appropriations process and in its reluctance to close a giant loophole in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act on acceptable employment documents that virtually precludes successful prosecutions of employers, the US Congress has sent very clear signals to the executive branch that what truly matters in the immigration control game is border enforcement—not interior enforcement. [http://www.cri.uci.edu/pdf/JEMS--final.pdf]

==Profile summaries of illegal immigrants==
<center>
{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"
!align=“center”! colspan=8 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Profile Summaries of Illegal Immigrants January 2006
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
||Job Category||% of Illegal Immigrant||% of Native -1 w/8+ yr sch.||% of Average Native||# Illegal Immigrant||# Native 8+ yr sch.||# Average Native
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Managerial / Self Employed||1.50%||5.9%||32.2%||108,000||758,000||33,810,000
|-
!align=“right”|Retail / Business||4.90%||15.2%||29.2%||352,800||1,952,700||30,660,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Private||1.20%||1.0%||0.3%||86,400||128,500||315,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farm Mgr||1.60%||1.6%||1.1%||115,200||205,600||1,155,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Retail||18.20%||20.3%||10.3%||1,310,400||2,607,900||10,815,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farming -2||17.50%||2.9%||1.0%||1,260,000||372,600||1,050,000
|-
!align=“right”|Production||22.0%||20.1%||11.9%||1,584,000||2,582,200||12,495,000
|-
!align=“right”|Construction||33.0%||33.1%||14.0%||2,376,000||4,252,400||14,700,000
|-
|||||||||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Total # Working||7,500,000||12,847,000||108,000,000||||||
|-
!align="right"|Labor rate of Participation -3||82%||46.3%||66.30%||||||
|-
!align="right"|Unemployment Rate||7.0%||7.0%||4.10%||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Country Profile||||||Sex / age Profile||||||Worker profile||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Mexican|| 6,840,000 ||57%||men 18-39||5,300,000||43.7%||align="right"|4,500,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Latin & Central Amer.|| align="right"|3,000,000 ||25%||women 18-39||align="right"|3,500,000 ||29.1%|| align="right"|2,000,000 ||60%
|-
!align="right"|Asia|| 1,080,000 ||9%||more than 40|| 1,300,000 ||10.7%||align="right"|1,000,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Europe + Canada|| 720,000 ||6%||less than 18||align="right"|2,040,000 ||17.0%||align="right"|200,000 ||10%
|-
!align="right"|Rest of World|| 480,000 ||4%||Born / yr.||align="right"|300,000||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Totals Jan 2006||12,100,000 ||||Total Pop.||12,400,000||Total Working||7,500,000
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / year||align="right"|700,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||See Note 7
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / Month||align="right"|60,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||
|-
|}
</center>

# Native Population that most closely matches Illegal immigrant population is workers that never graduated from high school.
# Farm work is the only job category that illegal immigrants uniquely fill; but it does have a 30,000 H2-A visa program for it!
# Rate of Participation is fraction of total population seeking work
# Average Education of illegal immigrants may be less if the ~30% Central American's are included.
# How many criminals turn around after deportation and return is unknown; but it is significant that ICE catchs more than they deport.
# Estimated number may be low by several hundred thousand
# Other estimates of net increase are over 850,000 illegal immigrants / year.

Information Sources:

*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population
*[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2]A Description of the Immigrant Population
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm] Labor Participation less than High School
* [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1204.html] Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't
*[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/AnnualReportEnforcement2004.pdf] Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2004
*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/16.pdf] The Labor Force Status of Short-Term Unauthorized Workers
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf] Labor Statistics

==Illegal immigration economics – NSF study==
The economics of illegal immigration are a highly contentious issue with much conflicting information presented. In 1990 the Congress appointed a bipartisan [[Commission on Immigration Reform]] to review the nation's policies and laws and to recommend changes. Information about the commission and its reports are available at http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/. In turn, the commission in 1995 asked the National Research Council of the National Science Foundation to convene a panel of experts to assess the demographic, economic, and fiscal consequences of immigration. The panel was asked to lay a scientific

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Education, Income and Taxes||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||Asia||Latin America||Other||U.S. / CA
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align =“right”|Years of Education *||14.2||14.7||9.2||12+||14.4
|-
!align =“right”|Household Income *||$42k||$57k||$32k||$42k||42k
|-
!align =“right”|Effective Federal tax rate **||18.7%||22%||5%||18.7%||18.7%
|-
!align =“right”|Effective State tax rate ***||10%||12%||9%||10%||10.9%
|-
!align =“right”|Average Federal taxes ||$7.9k||$12.5k||$1.6k||$7.9k||$7.9k
|-
!align =“right”|Average State taxes||$4.2k||$6.8k||$2.9||$4.2k||$4.5k
|-
|colspan=6|<hr>

|-
|colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' * Census data [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/effect2004/effect2004.html] **Average federal tax data from CBO estimates of effective Federal tax rates [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] ***State taxes are from California Statistical Abstract [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/STAT-ABS/toc.htm] Note: Most of the Federal and state taxes are paid by households earning significantly more than average.

|}

foundation for policymaking on some specific Immigration issues. [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/1.html]
The panel consisted of over 15 well respected professors from highly ranked universities [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The National Science Foundation panels charge was to address three key questions:
# What is the effect of immigration on the future size and composition of the U.S. population?
# What is the influence of immigration on the overall economy?
# What is the fiscal impact of immigration on federal, state, and local governments?
The report by 15+ researchers was issued after 3 years study was called “The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration” (1997) Edited by James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, ISBN 0-309-06356-6. The book is available on line at [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The enclosed table summarizes some of the National Academy of Sciences main conclusions.

'''"As long as there is a virtually unlimited supply of potential immigrants, the nation must make choices on how many to admit and who they should be."''' National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1997.

{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| National Science Foundation Immigrant Economics Federal State Local Net Annual Fiscal Impact per Household [1997]||
|-
| colspan=12|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||%||Asia||%||Latin America *||%||Other||%||All **||% ||Total Cost ***
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>
|--
!align =“right”|California||$1,631||26%||$1,081||25%|| ($7,206)||43%||$3,313||6%||($2.206)||100%|| ($20.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449||26%||$2,022||25%|| ($5,625)||43%||$3,052||6%|| ($1,613)||100%|| ($15.0) billion 
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrant Economics 2005 ****
|-
!align =“right”|California||$1,631 ||6%||$1,081 ||9%|| ($7,206)||81%||$3,313 ||4%|| ($5,509)||100%|| ($22.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449 ||6%||$2,022 ||9%|| ($5,625)||81%||$3,052 ||4%|| ($4,225)||100%|| ($17.0) billion 
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>

|-
|colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' ''The New Americans'', National Science Foundation Table 6.4, pg 284[http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/284.html] * Red data in parenthesis means this is the calculated cost over and above tax payments by illegal immigrants to other taxpayers per family ** All costs are the net prorated costs for all immigration and then illegal immigration alone. *** Total costs calculated for all U.S. immigrants, legal and illegal, 9.166 million households 1995 **** No adjustments for price or tax changes since 1995, assumes 4 million illegal households, percent distribution to different groups from Pew 
|}

==Other Economic Studies==

Previous studies (and many subsequent) of the fiscal impacts of immigration were found to have serious deficiencies. In 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available. According to an article in The National Academies Press, these studies "[...]represented not science but advocay from both sides of the immigration debate, often offered an incomplete accounting of either the full list of taxpayer costs and benefits by ignoring some programs and taxes while including others", and that the "foundation of this research was rarely explicitly stated, offering opportunities to tilt the research toward the desired result" <ref>''The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1998)'', pp.2, The National Academies Press (1998) [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/2.html Avbailable online]</ref>

In an article that appeared in the ''World Policy Journal'' (1994), Peter Andreas asserts that constraining the flow of illegal immigration in states such as California, may result in economic stagnation. <ref>Andreas, Peter, ''The Making of Amerexico (Mis)Handling Illegal Immigration,'' World Policy Journal Vol. 11.2 (1994): pp.55. "The sad irony is that the most important constraint on the flow of illegal immigrants may be continued economic stagnation in states such as California. In periods of recession, labor markets tighten, reducing em- ployment opportunities--both legal and illegal. Economic recovery, on the other hand--propelled in no small part by the hard work of illegal laborers already here-- would expand opportunities in the labor market, encouraging continued illegal immigration."</ref>

A study by the Rand Corporation, conducted by Kevin McCarthy and Georges Vernez, came to the conclusion that immigrants do not have a negative effect on the earnings and the employment opportunities of native-born Americans. <ref>McCarthy, Kevin F., Vernez, Georges, ''Immigration in a Changing Economy'', Rand Corporation (1997), ISBN 0-8330-2496-5</ref>McCarthy and Vernez believe that many of the immigrants settling in the state of California are not likely to be integrated successfully, and that the policy of the federal government need to change. Their book, that was sponsored by the [[Department of Defense]] and several foundations, concludes with three recommendations for the federal government:
# reduce total immigration from the current 1.2 million per year (900,000 legal and 300,000 illegal) to between 300,000 and 800,000 a year;
# expand the number of legal immigration slots available for Mexicans, in exchange for Mexican help to reduce illegal immigration; and
# encourage immigrants to learn English and to naturalize.
The report also recommends that the state of California do more to help immigrants succeed in school, to encourage English learning and naturalization, and to establish a state office of immigrant affairs to help residents understand immigration better.<ref>Martin, Philip, ''Immigration in a Changing Economy: California's Experience,'' Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 25.1 (1999): pp.159</ref>

Contrary to the NSF study, a study by Francine Lipman states that the belief that undocumented migrants are exploting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy, is "undeniable false". Lipman asserts that illegal immigrants provide a net positive benefit to federal coffers, because of the tax law's treatment of those in the country illegally and those who are married to illegal immigrants: they are ineligible for the [[Earned Income Credit]] and the Child Tax Credit, and that 85% of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive impact on the U.S. economy <ref>J. Lipman, Fnacine, J.''Taxing Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation'' [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584 Available online]" Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States' economy. The widespread belief is that illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is undeniably false. [E]very empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates the opposite . . .: undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services. Moreover, undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs. Eighty-five percent of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive (seventy-four percent) or neutral (eleven percent) impact on the U.S. economy."</ref>

The CIS claims that many illegal immigrants use the U.S. welfare program with false identification. [http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back503.html]

Backing up the NSF, another study put the cost to the federal government at $2,700/household [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html] On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal government are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Still another study put the net costs to California residents at $433/household for European/Canadian immigrants, $1,240/household for Asian immigrants and $8,182/household for Latin American workers [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/161.html TABLE 4-7a Net Fiscal Impacts by Nativity of Householder] pg 160-1. These are the costs calculated for all immigrants legal and illegal. The costs for illegal immigrants are significantly higher since they have even less education, earn even less income and often avoid paying even the small taxes they are elgible for.

Madeleine Cosman contends that the requirement of hospitals to offer service to illegal aliens regardless of the alien's ability to pay has led to many hospitals running a deficit and being forced to close.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf] Also, free public education is extended to all children in the U.S. regardless of their citizen status. The matricula consular and passports are usually considered legal identification by many police agencies and governments.

Nearly all modern developed societies like Sweden, Canada and the United States heavily subsidize the cost of all government services for low income people by heavily taxing the higher income people. In the United states the effective federal tax rate considering all federal taxes as calculated by the Congressional Budget office runs from 4.8% for the bottom quintile [0-20%](avg. income = $34k) to 25% for the last quintile [80-100%] of income households. The bottom two income quintiles, with exemptions, are nearly exempt from all income tax and social security taxes are heavily subsidized. Many illegal workers claim they have income tax witheld not bothering to mention it is nearly always negligibly small.[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] The state's tax systems vary more but nearly always tax the higher income people much more than the lower income people.

==2004 illegal immigration debate==
{{main|United States immigration debate}}
In 2004, [[United States]] [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] proposed a [[guest worker]] program to absorb migrant laborers who would otherwise come to the U.S. as [[illegal alien]]s. However, the details were left to legislators. In 2005, the [[United States Congress|Congress]] began creating legislation to change the current [[illegal immigration]] policies. The legislation approved by the U.S. [[House of Representatives]] led to massive protests.

See also [[2006 United States immigration reform protests]].

==Legal issues==

===U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service employes controversies===
====Misconduct charges====
In September 2005, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service reported that there were over 2,500 cases of their employees facing misconduct charges involving exchanging immigration benefits for sex, bribery, and influences by foreign governments to assist in violations of U.S. border security. In addition, another 50 such cases are being added weekly. These include cases turned over to the CIS and might not be the complete list according to sources speaking to the Washington Times [http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051003-122319-3501r.htm].
Several other news agencies have also reported known cases of the U.S. Border Patrol supporting trespassing of U.S. borders.
<ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/81082.php Border agent accused of hiding an illegal entrant]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/65117.php U.S. border agent indicted]</ref>. Agents have also been discovered to be illegal immigrants themselves conspiring to smuggle illegal aliens.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20050805-9999-7m5agent.html Border agent said to also be smuggler]</ref>

A [[CNN]] report by [[Lou Dobbs]] aired on October 3, 2005 reads: <ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/03/ldt.01.html Transcript, Lou Dobb Tonight] Retrieved Auf 2006</ref>
<blockquote>Alarming charges are being leveled tonight against the agency that makes key national security decisions about just who wins U.S. citizenship. Critics say the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service is plagued by employee misconduct, corruption, and may be giving green cards to foreigners who threaten our national security.</blockquote>

Not only have charges been filed, in some cases, the Border Patrol agents have pled guilty (such as the case of Pablo Sergio Berry<ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/94491.php Border agent pleads guilty to harboring illegal entrant]</ref>) or been found guilty in a court of law (such as the case of Oscar Antonio Ortiz who was found to have smuggled more than 100 aliens across the border<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2249419 Border Agent Gets 5 Years for Smuggling] ABC News. July 28, 2006</ref>.

====Allegations of abuse====
In addition, there are allegations of abuse such as the ones reported by Jesus A. Trevino, that concludes in an article published in the ''Houston Journal of International Law'' (2006) with a request to create an independent review commission to oversee the actions of the [[Border Patrol]], and that creating such review board will make the American public aware of the "serious problem of abuse that exists at the border by making this review process public" and that "illegal immigrants deserve the same constitutionally-mandated humane treatment of citizens and legal residents". <ref>Trevino, Jesus A. ''Border Violence against Illegal Immigrants and the Need to Change the Border Patrol's Current Complaint Review Process,'' Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 21.1 (1998): pp.85, 8 Aug. 2006. "What is required is a permanent independent review commission to investigate complaints of Border Patrol abuse. An independent review commission would ensure impartial and thorough investigations, and it would hold Border Patrol agents accountable for their actions. The internal nature of the Justice Department's current complaint review procedure keeps most Americans uneducated about the problems of abuse that exist at the border. This in turn creates an attitude of indifference when a few of the incidents reach the media. Creating an independent citizen review board would make the American public aware of the serious problem of abuse that exists at the border by making this review process public. Illegal immigrants deserve the same constitutionally-mandated humane treatment expected by American citizens and legal residents. Border Patrol abuse of illegal immigrants must end."</ref>

An article by Journal article by Michael Huspek, Leticia Jimenez, Roberto Martinez (1998) cites that in December 1997, John Case, head of the INS Office of Internal Audit (OIA), announced at a press conference that public complaints to the INS had risen 29% from 1996, with the "vast majority" of complaints emanating from the southwest border region, but that of of the 2,300 cases, the 243 cases of serious allegations of abuse were down in 1997. These serious cases are considered to be distinct from less serious complaints, such as "verbal abuse, discrimination, extended detention without cause." <ref> Huspek, Michael, Jimenez, Leticia, Martinez, Roberto ''Violations of Human and Civil Rights on the U.S.-Mexico Border, 1995 to 1997: A Report'', Social Justice, Vol. 25, 1998. "The data compiled in this report suggest that law enforcement in the southwest region of the United States may be verging on lawlessness. This statement receives fuller support from announcements emanating from the INS. In December 1997, John Chase, head of the INS Office of Internal Audit (OIA), announced at a press conference that public complaints to the INS had risen 29% from 1996, with the "vast majority" of complaints emanating from the southwest border region. Over 2,300 complaints were filed in 1997 as opposed to the 1,813 complaints filed in 1996. Another 400 reports of "minor misconduct" were placed in a new category. Chase was quick to emphasize, however, that the 243 "serious" allegations of abuse and use of excessive force that could warrant criminal prosecution were down in 1997, as compared with the 328 in 1996. These "serious" cases are considered to be distinct from less serious complaints, such as "verbal abuse, discrimination, extended detention without cause."</ref>

===Birth citizenship and illegal immigration===
Before passage of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], in 1865 after the conclusion of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], the United States commonly granted citizenship on the basis of [[jus soli]]. The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to protect newly emancipated [[freedmen|former slaves]], and in keeping with the jus soli tradition of the Republic has been interpreted by the [[United States Supreme Court]], in precedent set by ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'' in 1898, to cover everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents, with the exception of the children of diplomats. The decision in ''Wong Kim Ark'' upheld the ''jus soli'' which had often been practiced before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In short, the Court found that the 14th Amendment re-affirmed ''jus soli''. ''Wong Kim Ark'' did not overturn or weaken ''Elk v. Wilkins''; it simply defined ''jus soli''. The Court found that Wong Kim Ark, having been born to Chinese citizens, who were lawfully residing within the United States, and with the intention of amicably obeying its laws, was a citizen of the United States. Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are explicitly not citizens:
* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Children born to [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the [[Indian Citizenship Act of 1924]])
The following persons born in the United States are explicitly citizens:
* Children born to US citizens
* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people, and obeying its laws.

Under these rulings, the citizenship status of the U.S.-born children of [[illegal immigrant]]s is in the same gray area as people born in foreign countries of foreign parents - that is, neither ruling explicitly denies or grants them citizenship. Various aspects of both ''Elk v. Wilkins'' and ''Wong Kim Ark'' lend reasoning that such children are not US citizens. ''Wong Kim Ark'' is often cited as granting the children of illegal aliens US citizenship, but the ruling is explicit in that it applies to the children of aliens who are legally within the United States. Some may even argue that it implicitly denies them citizenship by doing so. However, in terms of Supreme Court rulings, or the rulings of any court, implicit is meaningless. The ''status quo'' is that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens, and it will remain that way until government policy changes or is challenged, and the Supreme Court inevitably makes an explicit ruling.

Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a [[constitutional amendment]]. The proposed changes are usually one of the following:
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or [[permanent resident]] (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States (requires an Act of Congress, probably challenged to the Supreme Court).

Representative [[Nathan Deal]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] of [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], introduced legislation in [[2005]] to assert that U.S.-born children are only "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (and therefore eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment) if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Similarly, Representative [[Ron Paul]] of [[Texas]] has introduced a constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Neither of these measures has come to a vote. Even if Rep. Deal's legislation were passed by Congress, it would likely be struck down by the courts based on the precedent established in ''U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark'', which allows for the US born children of lawful visitors to be citizens as well. The issue remains controversial, reflecting both tensions about immigration and disputes about the appropriate balance of power between the courts and the Congress.

Children of families where at least one parent is an illegal immigrant are sometimes referred to as ''[[Anchor baby|anchor babies]]'' because once the illegal family's mother gives birth to the baby inside the U.S., the baby is said to "anchor" them to the U.S.. Legally the illegal parent or parents can still be deported so the anchor is more perceived than real. However, some illegal immigrant advocates and some of the children with parents of mixed legal immigration status feel the term "Anchor Baby" is [[pejorative]].

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, "383,000, or 42 percent, of births to immigrants are to illegal alien mothers. Thus births to illegals now account for nearly 1 out of every 10 births in the United States"[http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back805release.html]

===Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986===
The [[Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]] (IRCA) made the hiring of an individual without documents an offense for the first time. Enforcement has been lax, but major businesses have often been found to use illegal immigrants. The act is somewhat redundant since the forging of government documents (fake immigration documents or providing falsified social security numbers) is already a felony, and for most companies such documents must be provided to the government in its tax filings. However, the government does not notify those whose identities have been stolen for the falsified social security numbers, thus making it difficult to estimate the extent of the problem. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/]

===Legal cases===
Some major companies have been accused of hiring undocumented workers.

* [[Tyson Foods]] was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its [[chicken]] packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee acquitted the company after evidence was presented that [[Tyson Foods]] went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.
* [[Wal-Mart]] was convicted of using illegal sub contracted [[janitor|janitorial]] workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge or permission.
* [[Philippe Kahn]], who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company [[Borland International]] without ever getting [[United States Permanent Resident Card|proper legal status]].

===Immigration with and without quotas===
The immigration quota system was first expanded with the [[Emergency Quota Act]] of 1921 which was used to reduce the influx of East and Southern European immigrants who were coming to the country in large numbers from the turn of the century. This immigration was further reduced by the [[Immigration Act of 1924]] which was structured to maintain the cultural and ethnic traditions of the United States.

There has never been a quota for Jews or any other religious group, only for people from specific countries. The waiting list for the few available immigration spots grew enormously in the 1930s in the U.S. and throughout the free world that was accepting any immigration. In the 1930's the number of Jewish immigrant applicants seeking visa to the U.S. alone exceeded the quota for all of Germany. [[Adolf Hitler]] started his [[Holocast]] program in the 1930's that ultimately led to the death of over 10,000,000 people including 6,000,000 Jews. The [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] administration had nearly shut down immigration during the decade of the [[Great Depression of 1929]]. In 1929 there were 279,678 immigrants recorded and in 1933 there were only 23,068 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. By 1939 recorded immigrants had crept back up to 82,998 but then the advent of World War II drove it back down to 23,725 in 1943 increasing slowly to 38,119 by 1945 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. After 1946 about 600,000 of Europe's Displaced Person (DP's) refugees were admitted under special laws outside the country quotas, and in the 1960s and 1970s large numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/] were admitted under special laws outside all quotas. Congress passed the [[Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965]] which esssentially removed all nation-specific quotas, while retaining an overall quota, and included immigrants from Mexico and the Western Hemisphere for the first time with their own quotas. It also put a large part of immigration, so-called family reunification, outside the quota system. This dramatically changed the number, type and composition of the new arrivals from mostly European, to predominantly poor [[Latino]] and [[Asian]]. It also dramatically increased the number of illegal immigrants as many poorer people now had family or friends in the U.S. that attracted them there. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] In 1986, the [[Immigration Reform and Control Act]] (IRCA) was passed, creating amnesty for about 3,000,000 illegal immigrants already in the United States. Critics believe IRCA just intensified the illegal immigration flow as those granted amnesty illegally brought more of their friends and family into the U.S.. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

Without quotas on large segments of the immigration flow, legal immigration to the U.S. surged and soon became largely family based "Chain immigration" where familys brought in a never ending chain of off quota new immigrant family members. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States are now at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000. Net Illegal immigration has also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970's, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980's to over 500,000 per year in the 1990's to over 700,000 per year in the 2000's. Total illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf], [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html])

See also: [[Immigration to the United States]]

===Other===
There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics.
* During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents.
* [[Linda Chavez]], [[Zoe Baird]] and [[Tom Tancredo]] are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "[[Nannygate]]". In Tancredo's case, a home contractor allegedly hired illegal aliens.

==Historical context==
Every wave of immigration into the United States has faced fear and hostility, especially during times of economic hardship, political turmoil, or war: in 1882, Congress passed the [[Chinese Exclusion Act (United States)|Chinese Exclusion Act]], one of our nation's first immigration laws, to keep out all people of Chinese origin; during the "Red Scare" of the 1920s, thousands of foreign-born people suspected of political radicalism were arrested and brutalized; many were deported without a hearing; and in 1942, 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned in camps until the end of World War II.
===Chinese experience===
In 1882 the Chinese Exclusion Act had cut off nearly all [[China|Chinese]] immigration. The first laws creating a [[quota]] for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers. Ngai (2003) shows that the new laws were the beginning of mass illegal immigration, because they created a new class of persons - illegal aliens - whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility. This contradiction challenged received notions of sovereignty and democracy in several ways. First, the increase in the number of illegal entries created a new emphasis on control of the nation's borders - especially the long Canadian border. Second, the application of the deportation laws gave rise to an oppositional political and legal discourse, which imagined "deserving" and "undeserving" illegal immigrants and, therefore, just and unjust deportations. These categories were constructed out of modern ideas about crime, sexual morality, the family, and race. In the 1930s federal deportation policy became the object of legal reform to allow for administrative discretion in deportation cases. Just as restriction and deportation "made" illegal aliens, administrative discretion "unmade" illegal aliens. Administrative law reform became an unlikely site where problems of national belonging and inclusion played out.

===History of border security===
For a period of time in the 1990s U.S. Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal aliens and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR infrared devices, and helicopters. In conjunction with the U.S. Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. Sher Zieve claims this was very effective but temporary as the illegal traffic resumed as soon as the military withdrew.[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]. After the [[September 11, 2001 attack]]s the United States looked at the feasibility of placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure. [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4018573.html]], [http://newsfromtheborder.blogspot.com/2006/07/del-rio-border-influx-drops.html], [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/national-guard-presence-cutting-number.php]

In December, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to build a [[separation barrier]] along parts of the border not already protected by a separation barriers. A later vote in the [[United States Senate]] on [[May 17]], [[2006]], included a plan to blockade 860 miles of the border with vehicle barriers and triple-layer fencing along with granting amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and roughly doubling legal immigration. [[Bay Buchanan]], head of [[Team America]], an [[immigration reduction]] [[political action committee]], estimated that it would take less than six months to build a 2,000 mile, triple-layer fence and would cost roughly $1.5 - 3 billion. On the same show, Buchanan claimed that the 1990s-era border security program [[Operation Gatekeeper]] cut down unauthorized immigration by 90%. The actual numbers are not quite that high with 565,581 apprehensions in San Diego district in fiscal year 1992 before Operation Gatekeeper and its enhanced border fencing and policing to a low of 100,681 apprehensions in in 2002--an 82% reduction. Apprehensions in 2006 are at 138,608 or a 75% reduction. [http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/news/SDUT-4-16-06.pdf]
Apprehensions have gone up in other areas as border security was enhanced in San Diego and El Paso which saw a similar drop in apprehensions.

== References and footnotes ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />
</div>

==Further reading==
* Barkan, Elliott R. "Return of the Nativists? California Public Opinion and Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s." ''Social Science History'' 2003 27(2): 229-283. in Project Muse
* Cull, Nicholas J. and Carrasco, Davíd, ed. ''Alambrista and the US-Mexico Border: Film, Music, and Stories of Undocumented Immigrants'' U. of New Mexico Press, 2004. 225 pp.
* Thomas J. Espenshade; "Unauthorized Immigration to the United States" ''Annual Review of Sociology''. Volume: 21. 1995. pp 195+.
* Flores, William V. "New Citizens, New Rights: Undocumented Immigrants and Latino Cultural Citizenship" ''Latin American Perspectives'' 2003 30(2): 87-100
* Lisa Magaña, ''Straddling the Border: Immigration Policy and the INS'' (2003
* Mohl, Raymond A. "Latinization in the Heart of Dixie: Hispanics in Late-twentieth-century Alabama" ''Alabama Review'' 2002 55(4): 243-274. Issn: 0002-4341
* Ngai, Mae M. ''Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America'' (2004),
* Ngai, Mae M. "The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921-1965" ''Law and History Review'' 2003 21(1): 69-107. Issn: 0738-2480 Fulltext in History Cooperative

== See also ==
* [[Immigration reduction]]
* [[United States immigration debate]]
* [[Free immigration]]
* [[History of US immigration]]
* [[Immigrant deaths along the United States Border]]
* [[Melting Pot]]
* [[Mexifornia]]
* [[Migra]]
* [[Nativism]]
* [[NumbersUSA]]
* [[H-1B visa]]
* [[Mara Salvatrucha]]
* [[Minuteman Project]]
* [[S. 2611]]

==External links==
===News Coverage===
* [[Orange County Register]]: “ 'Visa overstayers' fuel illegal population” - April 5, 2006 [http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1087193.php]
* [[USA Today]]: Text of President Bush's Immigration Law Reform Speech on May 16, 2006 [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-15-bush-speech-text_x.htm?csp=34]
* [[CNN]]: Reaction to Bush immigration speech - May 15, 2006 [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration.reax/index.html]
* [[Miami Herald]]: “No human being is `illegal” – May 24, 2006 [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14652801.htm]
* [[Washington Post]]: “One Sheriff sees immigration answer as simple – May 20, 2006 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]
* [[Associated Press]]: “Ariz. Posse to Arrest Illegal Immigrants” –May 4, 2006 [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html]
* [[NY Times]] “Arizona County Uses New Law to Look for Illegal Immigrants” –May 9, 2006 [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]
* [[City Journal]] “How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy” –no date [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] A publication of [[The Manhattan Institute]]

===Others===
*Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS22026.pdf] a report of the [[Congressional Research Service]] (January 13, 2005) provided by the [[Federation of American Scientists]].

[[Category:Immigration law]]
[[Category:Immigration to the United States]]
[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Legal categories of people]]

[[es:Inmigración ilegal]]

Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-20T17:28:30Z

71.74.209.82: restoring improperly deleted source material and using tags for unsourced material

'''Illegal immigration to the United States''' refers to the migration of people across the [[border|national borders]] of the [[United States]] that is in violation of U.S. [[Immigration law|immigration]] and [[United States nationality law|nationality law]]. The terms ''illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented alien, undocumented immigrant'', and ''undocumented worker'', are common terms used to refer to persons residing in the United States without either U.S. [[citizenship]] or a valid immigration status. <ref>The [[Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS) defines unauthorized immigrants as “foreign-born persons who entered without inspection or who violated the terms of a temporary admission and who have not acquired Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status or gained temporary protection against removal by applying for an immigration benefit. For example, the following foreign-born persons are not considered to be unauthorized residents in these estimates: refugees, asylees, and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and aliens who are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings. [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf]</ref>.
In the United States the term ‘’undocumented alien’’ typically refers to a foreign national who entered the country without valid travel documents or who overstayed the limited period of time granted upon entry. For example, a tourist who enters with a valid [B1 visa] and is granted a stay of 15 days and remains in-country for 30 days is an ‘’undocumented alien’’. The holder of a valid B1 (tourist) visa is barred from accepting employment. By accepting employment this hypothetical tourist becomes an ‘’undocumented worker’’ (whether he is an ‘’undocumented alien’’ or not). Technically, those who do not work are not "undocumented workers"; however, the term is often used to encompass all unauthorized individuals, including children, the elderly, and those who cannot or do not work.

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrants Info||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Education Profile||Number||Percent||
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Less then 12 yr.||align="right"|6,700,000||67.0%||
|-
!align="right"|High School||align="right"|3,000,000||30.0%||
|-
!align="right"|College Graduate||align="right"|300,000||3.0%||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Total Illegal Pop.||align="right"|12,000,000 ||Jan 2006||
|-
!align="right"|Total Working||align="right"|7,500,000
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Caught|| align="right"|202,842||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Deported|| align="right"|88,895||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Caught and Released|| align="right"|1,010,000+||2005||
|-
!align="right"|Illegal Immigrants/year|| align="right"|1,500,000+||Total||
|-
!align="right"|Voluntary returns/year||align="right"| - 200,000+||2005
|-
!align="right"|Change of Status/year||align="right"| - 600,000+||2005
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Net Increase/year||align="right"| 700,000+||Illegal Immigrants||
|-
|colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] A Description of the Immigrant Population [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2] 
|}

===Size of illegal immigrant population===

The actual number of illegal immigrants is unknown and controversial. There are no national surveys, administrative data, or other sources of information that directly provide accurate estimates of this population<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/ILL_PE_2005.pdf
|title= Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2005
|author= MICHAEL HOEFER
|coauthor= NANCY RYTINA
|coauthor= CHRISTOPHER CAMPBELL
|publisher=US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate
|date=August 2006
|page=1
}}</ref>. The basic method of estimating this population is called the “residual method” where the reported census number of self proclaimed foreign born people in the U.S. census is subtracted from the known number of legal immigrants to obtain the illegal immigrant population<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/46.pdf
|title=Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics
|author=Jeffrey S. Passel
|publisher=Pew Hispanic Center
|date=June 2005
|page=7
}}</ref>. This methodology is used by the [[United States Department of Homeland Security|US Department of Homeland Security]], [[Pew Hispanic Center]], the [[Census Bureau]] and others. Detractors of this methodology argue that this uncorrected subtraction gives too small a number of illegal immigrants because of significant census under reporting of foreign born residents particularly illegal immigrants who have many possible reasons for not reporting their presence (including language and communication problems) and no penalties for incorrect census replies.{{fact}}. Various investigators have estimated the census foreign born under count at 10-40% or 3-12 million{{fact}}.
Using the residual methodology Pew, using an unexplained ~10% correction, came up with 8.4 million illegal immigrants in 2000 growing at a more-or-less steady rate to 10.4 million in 2004 and 12 million in 2006{{fact}}. The Census Bureau estimated 7 million illegal immigrants in 2000{{fact}}. The Office of Immigration Statistics in the Department of Homeland Security estimates that 10.5 million illegal immigrants were living in the United States in January 2005 and that the number grew at a national average of 408,000 a year.
<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/ILL_PE_2005.pdf
|title= Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2005
|author= MICHAEL HOEFER
|coauthor= NANCY RYTINA
|coauthor= CHRISTOPHER CAMPBELL
|publisher=US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate
|date=August 2006
}}</ref>

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Mexican Remittances and Illegal Population Growth||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Year||* Remittances Billions||Remittances % Increase per year||Illegal ** Mexicans Millions||Illegal Increase thous./yr||Pew *** est. thous./yr
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|1995||3,673||||3.000|| ||
|-
!align=“right”|1996||4,224||15.0%||3.450||450||400
|-
!align=“right”|1997||4,865||15.2%||3.974||524||400
|-
!align=“right”|1998||4,744||-2.5%||3.875||-99||400
|-
!align=“right”|1999||5,910||24.6%||4.827||952||400
|-
!align=“right”|2000||6,573||11.2%||5.369||542||500
|-
!align=“right”|2001||8,895||35.3%||7.265||1,897||500
|-
!align=“right”|2002||9,814||10.3%||8.016||751||500
|-
!align=“right”|2003||13,396||36.5%||10.941||2,926||500
|-
!align=“right”|2004||16,613||24.0%||13.569||2,628||500
|-
!align=“right”|2005||20,035||20.6%||16.364||2,795||500
|-
!align=“right”|Non-Mex. ||||||4.0 to 6.0|| ||
|-
|colspan=6|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Total||illegal||immigrants||20.0 to 22.0||million ||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>
|-
|colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| Assumes the amount of remittances from the U.S. is proportional to the number of Mexican's living in the U.S. As can be seen the Pew and Bear Stern numbers are in basic agreement to about 2000 '''Sources:''' * Banco de Mexico[http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPAYMENTREMMITTANCE/Resources/BancodeMexicoRicardoMedina.pdf] ** Bear Stern’s investigators [http://www.bearstearns.com/bscportal/pdfs/underground.pdf] *** Pew data [http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] 
|}Bear Stern’s investigators <ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.bearstearns.com/bscportal/pdfs/underground.pdf
|title= The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface
|autor= Robert Justich
|coauthor= Betty Ng
|publisher= Bear Sterns Asset Management
|date= January 3, 2005
}}</ref> came up with another way to attack this very difficult problem. They made the assumption that the amount of [[remittances]] (money sent back to Mexico) is directly proportional to the number of Mexican immigrants in the United States. Other data used for their estimates are the increases of households and school enrollment in Mexican immigrant communities. They conclude that the number of illegal immigrants in the United States is around twice the official number of 9 million and may be 20 million people or higher. A web document claiming to come from [[Banco de Mexico|The Mexican Central Bank]] details the remittances and shows their growth [http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPAYMENTREMMITTANCE/Resources/BancodeMexicoRicardoMedina.pdf]. According to that data, remittances stayed fairly stable until 2000 when a steady and dramatic increase began. The change in remittances between 1998 and 1999 is most likely a problem in accounting--the two year average is still about 450 thousand consistent with other data. The agreement with the Pew estimate is reasonably good up to 2001 where there is a significant difference--just where the Pew data becomes harder to extrapolate. Using this technique Bear Sterns investigators come up with a possible illegal population of 20 million or greater. (See figure for calculation) Other data confirming their estimates are the dramatic increases of households and school enrollment in Mexican immigrant communities (read their report for more details). Border Arrest data do not show this dramatic increase in apprehensions so how could all these new illegal immigraants have gotten here? A possible answer is simple--many of them simply drove to the United States on shopping trips that included new jobs and a new home and "forgot" to return to Mexico. According to the Bureau and Transportaion statistics [[http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/border_crossing_entry_data/us_mexico/index.html]there are over 200,000,000 "legal" border crossing from Mexico each year, ~80% by automobile. If only one percent kept on going plus the numbers that walk across the border and its easy to get the number of illegal immigrants projected and the lack of interior enforcement says they have a good chance of getting away with it.

In the 2001-2006 National Development Plan the [[Politics of Mexico|Mexican Government]] says they want to support the 18 million Mexicans who live outside Mexico. There is no information on this report on the source of the data or on the number of those immigrants living in the United States<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://pnd.presidencia.gob.mx/pdf/PND_%201-3.pdf
|title=Plan Nacional De Desarrollo 2001-2006
|publisher= Presidencia De La República, Gobierno de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos
|date=2001
|page=28
|language=Spanish
}}</ref>

===Illegal immigration overview===
According to a 2002 Zogby International poll, "58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Zogby said 28 percent disagreed, while another 14 percent said they weren't sure.
Meanwhile, a similar number – 57 percent – agreed that "Mexicans should have the right to enter the U.S. without U.S. permission," while 35 percent disagreed and 7 percent were unsure. " [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27941]
The Pew Hispanic Center [http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf (Estimating the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population; Figure 3) ] estimates that in the 1980’s net illegal immigration was at the 130,000 per year increasing to 450,000 /year from 1990-94, and further increasing to 750,000 /year from 1995-1999 and staying at 700,000+ /year since about 2000. Illegal Mexican immigration amounts to about 500,000 /year of this influx. According to the same [[Pew Hispanic Center]] study as of March 2005, the illegal immigrant population had reached nearly 12 million including more than 6 million Mexicans. Assuming the same rate of growth as in recent years. Adding the expected increases since 2005 gives about 12,000,000 illegal immigrants in the United States with illegal Mexicans amounting to about 60% of the total by 2006. About one-sixth of the illegal immigrant population—about 2.0 million people— is under 18 years of age.

The number of illegal immigrants emigrating [leaving] the U.S. is estimated at about 240,000 /year (~20% of illegal population) [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2]

Professor Wayne A. Cornelius, (U.C. Davis) summed up the problems of illegal [http://polisci.ucsd.edu/faculty/cornelius.htm] U. S, immigration [http://www.cri.uci.edu/pdf/JEMS--final.pdf (Controlling ‘Unwanted’ Immigration)]
“Consequences predicted by advocates of the concentrated border enforcement strategy have not yet materialized: there is no evidence that unauthorized migration is being deterred at the point of origin; that would-be illegal entrants are being discouraged at the border after multiple apprehensions by the Border Patrol and returning home; that their employment prospects in the US have been curtailed; or that the resident population of undocumented immigrants is shrinking”

The main effect has been to drive illegal immigration to less well defended parts of the border and drive the cost of illegal immigration up as more and more illegal immigrants employ expensive “Coyotes” and their criminal associates.

In 2006 the Senate approved 370 miles of new double- and triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers and then refused to fund them. In December, the House voted for 700 miles of new barriers. Neither was able to reach a compromise bill. There is no assurance that if built, these new layers of protection will reduce the flow of illegal migrants from Mexico. Welfare reform stimulated no mass exodus of unauthorized migrants, and there was no let-up in the massive wave of new immigration occurring in the second half of the 1990s. Both through the appropriations process and in its reluctance to close a giant loophole in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act on acceptable employment documents that virtually precludes successful prosecutions of employers, the US Congress has sent very clear signals to the executive branch that what truly matters in the immigration control game is border enforcement—not interior enforcement. [http://www.cri.uci.edu/pdf/JEMS--final.pdf] Despite over 60% of the American public claiming they want to curb illegal immigration Congress is unable to agree on doing anything.

Staffing levels and priorities of finding illegal employers clearly reflect the low priority assigned to workplace enforcement by the Immigration services. Since 1986 the United States has had legislation that penalizes employers who knowingly hire unauthorized foreign workers, but enforcement of employer sanctions has always been at a token level. The provision of the 1986 law that provides sanctions for ‘knowingly’ hiring unauthorized immigrants contains no requirement that employers verify the authenticity of documents presented by job applicants. To reduce the magnet of US jobs, more vigorous worksite enforcement aimed at larger employers would have to be coupled with systematic efforts to remove unauthorized immigrants found to be employed by such firms from the labor market and the country. Without such ‘removal’ efforts, targeted workplace enforcement simply scatters unauthorized workers to other employers and industries. [http://www.cri.uci.edu/pdf/JEMS--final.pdf]

“A growing number of illegal aliens who cross our land borders arrive under the auspices of sophisticated alien smuggling operations, often connected to organized crime.” [http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM]

The number of Mexican immigrants in the United States has grown quite rapidly over the
past 35 years, increasing almost 15-fold from about 760,000 in the 1970 Census to more than 11 million in 2004—an average annual growth rate of more than 8 percent, maintained over more than 3 decades. This remarkable growth has been largely driven by illegal immigration. On average the net Mexican population living in the United States has grown by about half a million people a year over the past decade. About 80 to 85 percent of the immigration from Mexico in recent years has been illegal. [http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf (Pew report Figure 4 and page 2)]

After 2000 the estimation of the growth becomes more difficult beacuse of a lack of good information. The rate of growth of the illegal population is estimated with the Consumer Price Survey data [2004] which suffers from the same under counting problems of the Census plus the problem of a much smaller statistical sample of only 10-20,000. Its accuracy may well be suspect for lack of a truly representative "random" sample. Using these techniques Pew comes up with from 11.5 – 12 million illegal immigrants in 2006 with a growth rate of 700,000 to 850,000 net illegal immigrants per year. This is the so called "consensus" number used by most reporters. The unstated cummulative error in total illegal immigrants by 2006 could easily be an additional 8 million illegal immigrants or more and the error in the growth rate since 2000 could also be very large but again is unstated by Pew and others. There is a high probability of the illegal immigrant population's size in 2006 being significantly larger than predicted as all additional information points to a significant increase (300+ %) in illegal immigration rates after 2000. Bottom line, the number of illegal immigrants reported may well be a minimum estimate and their growth rate could easily be a lot more than is commonly reported—we just don’t know for sure. {{fact}}

==Methods used to enter the U.S. illegally==

====Illegal border crossing====
{{sectNPOV}}
That Pew Hispanic article goes on to state, "The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."
[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]
meaning that they crossed a border without passing possible criminal or health inspection or having a valid passport and [[Visa (document)|visa]] inspected by an immigration officer at a Port of Entry (POE). It is estimated that over a million people cross the border illegally each year, most of whom are of Mexican origin{fact}. The rest are labeled "Other Than Mexicans" (OTM), of whom a majority are [[Central America]]ns{fact}.

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a [[misdemeanor]] for the first offense and a [[felony]] for subsequent violations{{fact}}. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the future{{fact}}. Immigrants who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. [[H.R. 4437]] would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

According to a report by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary on 1997, "Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling."<ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM ORDER SECURITY AND DETERRING ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary</ref>
Another large scale multi-million dollar criminal operations connected to illegal immigration is identity theft. [http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html]
The higher crime rates associated with all this traffic has led to extensive efforts on the part of individual sheriffs and communities trying to prevent further damage to their property and communities. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html], [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html], [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss], [[http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]

In 2006 the number of apprehensions on the border is almost the same as last year through 16 July 2006 at 936,000 [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20060722-9999-1n22crossers.html ]. However, according to many US Border Patrol agents, they were instructed by their leadership to "keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited" as one US Border Patrol agent put it [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm].
Some of the traffic has spread away from the dangerous Tucson districts deserts where over a hundred illegal immigrants have died so far this year compared to 153 in 2005. [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060722/images/border.pdf]

[[Image:ElPaso-Juarez-EO.JPG|thumb|right|200px|El Paso (top) and Ciudad Juárez (bottom) seen from earth orbit; the Rio Grande is the thin line separating the two cities through the middle of the photograph.]]
[[Image:TJ Border Beach.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Beach at Border Field State Park near [[San Ysidro, California]]. (Tire tracks from Border Patrol jeeps are visible on the beach.)]]

Border Patrol activity is concentrated around big border cities such as [[San Diego, California|San Diego]] and [[El Paso, Texas|El Paso]] which already have [[separation barriers]] and extensive Border Agent coverage. Each state in the United States has a [[United States National Guard|National Guard]] organization that could, in principal, be placed on the border at a state governor's discretion to assist with border security; many states also have a backup to the National Gurard called the [[State Defense Force]] that could, in an emergency, also be activated for this purpose. Arizona and New Mexico have currently declared the counties that border [[Mexico]] to be under serious duress caused by uncontrolled illegal immigrant traffic, thereby enabling governors to deploy National Guardsmen to the international border. Arizona has exercised this option but New Mexico has not.

In an article published by Renew America, a website which defines itself as a "Alan Keyes' website for grassroots activism -- designed to foster a nationwide movement to restore America to its founding ideals", former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard asserts that "The whole U.S.-Mexico border could be sealed with as few as 100 helicopters equipped with FLIR (forward looking infrared) scopes, and a few hundred men equipped with state of the art sensors, scopes and other electronics..." [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]

See also [[United States–Mexico border]], [[United States-Canada border]].

=====From countries with no visa agreements=====
Immigrants from nations that do not have automatic visa agreements, or who would not otherwise qualify for a visa, sometimes cross the borders illegally. Individuals from [[North Korea]], [[Libya]], [[Cuba]], [[Syria]], [[Sudan]], and [[Iran]] are required to submit to strict questioning from U.S. officials before their applications are processed. Their applications take longer to process than those for visitors and immigrants from other countries. [http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1300.html]

Often, these individuals enter from a land border using falsified documentation from a third country. For instance, [[Ahmed Ressam]], a member of [[Al Qaeda]], originally from [[Algeria]], entered [[Canada]] with a falsified [[France|French]] passport. Once in Canada, he procured a false Canadian passport to enter the United States. In the case of Cuba, the U.S. offers political asylum to many Cubans, but they first must reach U.S. soil. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//shows/trail/etc/fake.html]

====Visa or Border Crossing Card overstayers====

A visa overstayer is someone who has entered the United States legally and then illegally overstayed his or her visa or violated the restrictions on Border Crossing Card (BCC) or laser visa. Fraudulent and forged visa and BCC passes are included in this category. An estimated average 40-60% of all illegal immigrants to the U.S. entered this way. The number of overstayers varies considerably from country to country depending on the location of the country, the cultural, political, social and economic conditions in a given country in a given time. The PEW Hispanic institute reported [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf] that the INS had developed statistics that showed 3.2% of all Central and South America visas are overstayed. A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study gives estimates for all countries showing that China, India, Korea, and the Philippines had violation rates as high as 8%.[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] In general the poorer the country they came from the more likely the foreign visitor was to violate their visa.

GAO estimated that 40-60% of all Mexican illegal immigrants got here by violating their border crossing document's conditions. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] In operation Tarmac where ICE and DHS checked airport employees for legal employment they found 27% of the over 4900 violators found were visa or BCC violators. In one of the rare ICE check ups on a grocery chain they found that over 57% of the several hundred violators were visa overstayers or BCC violators ([http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf| Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered Defense]) patrol officials believe Visa violator numbers would increase if it became more difficult to illegally sneak across the border as illegal border crossers switched techniques. About 33% of all Central American illegal immigrants came by overstaying their visa with the rest traveling through Mexico to reach the border and then crossing illegally. At lest 95+% of all illegal South American, European, and Asians got here by overstaying their visa. (The other ~5% represent illegal immigrants smuggled by ship or plane) An increasing number of illegal immigrants are now flying to Mexico or Canada and then crossing the border illegally by foot or car. The ICE agents on the border report a 52% increase in border violators caught that are Other Than Mexican (OTM). The two main sources of illegal visa violators are Mexico and Canada which the U.S. has a large amount of cross border traffic with. Other estimates done by the GAO show that the overstayers and BCC violators from Mexico alone in the year 2001 may exceed 2,000,000 /year. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/border_crossing_entry_data/us_mexico/index.html] reported that in 2003 (the last year of available statistics) there were 79,000,000 and 245,000,000 border crossings between Canada and Mexico respectively and the US. The tourist bureau shows that there were less Mexicans (as reported by their government) doing all this traffic than their were Canadians (as reported by their government).[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] Mexico has roughly three times the population of Canada. The latest ICE statistics show that they captured 30,000 Brazilians after they crossed the U.S. Mexican border illegally for the first time in 2004. Two of the terrorists behind the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] were visa overstayers. The federal government historically has not extensibly checked up on visa holders once they are in the country; but visa checks has been used extensively after 9 September 2001 to check up on illegal immigrants from countries with large populations sympathic to terrorists. Several hundred visa violators were deported and several thousand more left voluntarily rather than face deportation hearings. {{fact}}

To help improve the lack of good information on visa overstayers the new US-VISIT program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States as well as requiring electronic readable passports containing this information. Information collected is checked against lookout databases to ensure that known or suspected terrorists, criminals, and previous U.S. immigration law violators are not admitted. [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-11_Feb05.pdf] and then checked against their eventual departure. US-VISIT entry procedures have been operational in the secondary inspection areas of the 50 busiest land border ports of entry since December 29, 2004, and are also in place at 115 airports and 15 seaports.[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4858] Early in 2007 the DHS is hoping to replace the laser visa or boundary crossing cards with People Access Security Service (PASS) card, as a secure identity document for people traveling to or from Canada or Mexico. [http://www.thebta.org/syndicate/news/archives/cat_us-visit.html] These would include Radio Frequency Identification Data (RFID) for ease of transit and security.

Visa overstayers violators tend to be somewhat more educated and be better off financially than those who walked crossed the border illegally. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0205/p01s03-usju.html] The financial and education status of the thousands of BCC or laser visa violators is unknown; but is probably very similar to the illegal border crossers who walked across since they both come from the same population base.

One common means of visa overstaying is coming to the U.S. on a student visa and not going to school or not leaving the country after finishing school. [http://ktla.trb.com/la-me-visa22may22,0,2677069.story?coll=ktla-home-3] The number of foreign students in the United States is over 600,000.

==Profile summaries of illegal immigrants==
<center>
{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"
!align=“center”! colspan=8 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Profile Summaries of Illegal Immigrants January 2006
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
||Job Category||% of Illegal Immigrant||% of Native -1 w/8+ yr sch.||% of Average Native||# Illegal Immigrant||# Native 8+ yr sch.||# Average Native
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Managerial / Self Employed||1.50%||5.9%||32.2%||108,000||758,000||33,810,000
|-
!align=“right”|Retail / Business||4.90%||15.2%||29.2%||352,800||1,952,700||30,660,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Private||1.20%||1.0%||0.3%||86,400||128,500||315,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farm Mgr||1.60%||1.6%||1.1%||115,200||205,600||1,155,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Retail||18.20%||20.3%||10.3%||1,310,400||2,607,900||10,815,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farming -2||17.50%||2.9%||1.0%||1,260,000||372,600||1,050,000
|-
!align=“right”|Production||22.0%||20.1%||11.9%||1,584,000||2,582,200||12,495,000
|-
!align=“right”|Construction||33.0%||33.1%||14.0%||2,376,000||4,252,400||14,700,000
|-
|||||||||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Total # Working||7,500,000||12,847,000||108,000,000||||||
|-
!align="right"|Labor rate of Participation -3||82%||46.3%||66.30%||||||
|-
!align="right"|Unemployment Rate||7.0%||7.0%||4.10%||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Country Profile||||||Sex / age Profile||||||Worker profile||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Mexican|| 6,840,000 ||57%||men 18-39||5,300,000||43.7%||align="right"|4,500,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Latin & Central Amer.|| align="right"|3,000,000 ||25%||women 18-39||align="right"|3,500,000 ||29.1%|| align="right"|2,000,000 ||60%
|-
!align="right"|Asia|| 1,080,000 ||9%||more than 40|| 1,300,000 ||10.7%||align="right"|1,000,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Europe + Canada|| 720,000 ||6%||less than 18||align="right"|2,040,000 ||17.0%||align="right"|200,000 ||10%
|-
!align="right"|Rest of World|| 480,000 ||4%||Born / yr.||align="right"|300,000||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Totals Jan 2006||12,100,000 ||||Total Pop.||12,400,000||Total Working||7,500,000
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / year||align="right"|700,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||See Note 7
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / Month||align="right"|60,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||
|-
|}
</center>

# Native Population that most closely matches Illegal immigrant population is workers that never graduated from high school.
# Farm work is the only job category that illegal immigrants uniquely fill; but it does have a 30,000 H2-A visa program for it!
# Rate of Participation is fraction of total population seeking work
# Average Education of illegal immigrants may be less if the ~30% Central American's are included.
# How many criminals turn around after deportation and return is unknown; but it is significant that ICE catchs more than they deport.
# Estimated number may be low by several hundred thousand
# Other estimates of net increase are over 850,000 illegal immigrants / year.

Information Sources:

*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population
*[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2]A Description of the Immigrant Population
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm] Labor Participation less than High School
* [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1204.html] Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't
*[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/AnnualReportEnforcement2004.pdf] Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2004
*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/16.pdf] The Labor Force Status of Short-Term Unauthorized Workers
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf] Labor Statistics

==Illegal immigration economics – NSF study==
The economics of illegal immigration are a highly contentious issue with much conflicting information presented. In 1990 the Congress appointed a bipartisan [[Commission on Immigration Reform]] to review the nation's policies and laws and to recommend changes. Information about the commission and its reports are available at http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/. In turn, the commission in 1995 asked the National Research Council of the National Science Foundation to convene a panel of experts to assess the demographic, economic, and fiscal consequences of immigration. The panel was asked to lay a scientific

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Education, Income and Taxes||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||Asia||Latin America||Other||U.S. / CA
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align =“right”|Years of Education *||14.2||14.7||9.2||12+||14.4
|-
!align =“right”|Household Income *||$42k||$57k||$32k||$42k||42k
|-
!align =“right”|Effective Federal tax rate **||18.7%||22%||5%||18.7%||18.7%
|-
!align =“right”|Effective State tax rate ***||10%||12%||9%||10%||10.9%
|-
!align =“right”|Average Federal taxes ||$7.9k||$12.5k||$1.6k||$7.9k||$7.9k
|-
!align =“right”|Average State taxes||$4.2k||$6.8k||$2.9||$4.2k||$4.5k
|-
|colspan=6|<hr>

|-
|colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' * Census data [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/effect2004/effect2004.html] **Average federal tax data from CBO estimates of effective Federal tax rates [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] ***State taxes are from California Statistical Abstract [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/STAT-ABS/toc.htm] Note: Most of the Federal and state taxes are paid by households earning significantly more than average.

|}

foundation for policymaking on some specific Immigration issues. [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/1.html]
The panel consisted of over 15 well respected professors from highly ranked universities [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The National Science Foundation panels charge was to address three key questions:
# What is the effect of immigration on the future size and composition of the U.S. population?
# What is the influence of immigration on the overall economy?
# What is the fiscal impact of immigration on federal, state, and local governments?
The report by 15+ researchers was issued after 3 years study was called “The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration” (1997) Edited by James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, ISBN 0-309-06356-6. The book is available on line at [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The enclosed table summarizes some of the National Academy of Sciences main conclusions.

'''"As long as there is a virtually unlimited supply of potential immigrants, the nation must make choices on how many to admit and who they should be."''' National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1997.

{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| National Science Foundation Immigrant Economics Federal State Local Net Annual Fiscal Impact per Household [1997]||
|-
| colspan=12|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||%||Asia||%||Latin America *||%||Other||%||All **||% ||Total Cost ***
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>
|--
!align =“right”|California||$1,631||26%||$1,081||25%|| ($7,206)||43%||$3,313||6%||($2.206)||100%|| ($20.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449||26%||$2,022||25%|| ($5,625)||43%||$3,052||6%|| ($1,613)||100%|| ($15.0) billion 
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrant Economics 2005 ****
|-
!align =“right”|California||$1,631 ||6%||$1,081 ||9%|| ($7,206)||81%||$3,313 ||4%|| ($5,509)||100%|| ($22.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449 ||6%||$2,022 ||9%|| ($5,625)||81%||$3,052 ||4%|| ($4,225)||100%|| ($17.0) billion 
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>

|-
|colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' ''The New Americans'', National Science Foundation Table 6.4, pg 284[http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/284.html] * Red data in parenthesis means this is the calculated cost over and above tax payments by illegal immigrants to other taxpayers per family ** All costs are the net prorated costs for all immigration and then illegal immigration alone. *** Total costs calculated for all U.S. immigrants, legal and illegal, 9.166 million households 1995 **** No adjustments for price or tax changes since 1995, assumes 4 million illegal households, percent distribution to different groups from Pew 
|}

==Other Economic Studies==

Previous studies (and many subsequent) of the fiscal impacts of immigration were found to have serious deficiencies. In 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available. According to an article in The National Academies Press, these studies "[...]represented not science but advocay from both sides of the immigration debate, often offered an incomplete accounting of either the full list of taxpayer costs and benefits by ignoring some programs and taxes while including others", and that the "foundation of this research was rarely explicitly stated, offering opportunities to tilt the research toward the desired result" <ref>''The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1998)'', pp.2, The National Academies Press (1998) [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/2.html Avbailable online]</ref>

In an article that appeared in the ''World Policy Journal'' (1994), Peter Andreas asserts that constraining the flow of illegal immigration in states such as California, may result in economic stagnation. <ref>Andreas, Peter, ''The Making of Amerexico (Mis)Handling Illegal Immigration,'' World Policy Journal Vol. 11.2 (1994): pp.55. "The sad irony is that the most important constraint on the flow of illegal immigrants may be continued economic stagnation in states such as California. In periods of recession, labor markets tighten, reducing em- ployment opportunities--both legal and illegal. Economic recovery, on the other hand--propelled in no small part by the hard work of illegal laborers already here-- would expand opportunities in the labor market, encouraging continued illegal immigration."</ref>

A study by the Rand Corporation, conducted by Kevin McCarthy and Georges Vernez, came to the conclusion that immigrants do not have a negative effect on the earnings and the employment opportunities of native-born Americans. <ref>McCarthy, Kevin F., Vernez, Georges, ''Immigration in a Changing Economy'', Rand Corporation (1997), ISBN 0-8330-2496-5</ref>McCarthy and Vernez believe that many of the immigrants settling in the state of California are not likely to be integrated successfully, and that the policy of the federal government need to change. Their book, that was sponsored by the [[Department of Defense]] and several foundations, concludes with three recommendations for the federal government:
# reduce total immigration from the current 1.2 million per year (900,000 legal and 300,000 illegal) to between 300,000 and 800,000 a year;
# expand the number of legal immigration slots available for Mexicans, in exchange for Mexican help to reduce illegal immigration; and
# encourage immigrants to learn English and to naturalize.
The report also recommends that the state of California do more to help immigrants succeed in school, to encourage English learning and naturalization, and to establish a state office of immigrant affairs to help residents understand immigration better.<ref>Martin, Philip, ''Immigration in a Changing Economy: California's Experience,'' Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 25.1 (1999): pp.159</ref>

Contrary to the NSF study, a study by Francine Lipman states that the belief that undocumented migrants are exploting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy, is "undeniable false". Lipman asserts that illegal immigrants provide a net positive benefit to federal coffers, because of the tax law's treatment of those in the country illegally and those who are married to illegal immigrants: they are ineligible for the [[Earned Income Credit]] and the Child Tax Credit, and that 85% of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive impact on the U.S. economy <ref>J. Lipman, Fnacine, J.''Taxing Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation'' [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584 Available online]" Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States' economy. The widespread belief is that illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is undeniably false. [E]very empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates the opposite . . .: undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services. Moreover, undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs. Eighty-five percent of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive (seventy-four percent) or neutral (eleven percent) impact on the U.S. economy."</ref>

The CIS claims that many illegal immigrants use the U.S. welfare program with false identification. [http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back503.html]

Backing up the NSF, another study put the cost to the federal government at $2,700/household [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html] On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal government are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Still another study put the net costs to California residents at $433/household for European/Canadian immigrants, $1,240/household for Asian immigrants and $8,182/household for Latin American workers [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/161.html TABLE 4-7a Net Fiscal Impacts by Nativity of Householder] pg 160-1. These are the costs calculated for all immigrants legal and illegal. The costs for illegal immigrants are significantly higher since they have even less education, earn even less income and often avoid paying even the small taxes they are elgible for.

Madeleine Cosman contends that the requirement of hospitals to offer service to illegal aliens regardless of the alien's ability to pay has led to many hospitals running a deficit and being forced to close.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf] Also, free public education is extended to all children in the U.S. regardless of their citizen status. The matricula consular and passports are usually considered legal identification by many police agencies and governments.

Nearly all modern developed societies like Sweden, Canada and the United States heavily subsidize the cost of all government services for low income people by heavily taxing the higher income people. In the United states the effective federal tax rate considering all federal taxes as calculated by the Congressional Budget office runs from 4.8% for the bottom quintile [0-20%](avg. income = $34k) to 25% for the last quintile [80-100%] of income households. The bottom two income quintiles, with exemptions, are nearly exempt from all income tax and social security taxes are heavily subsidized. Many illegal workers claim they have income tax witheld not bothering to mention it is nearly always negligibly small.[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] The state's tax systems vary more but nearly always tax the higher income people much more than the lower income people.

==2004 illegal immigration debate==
{{main|United States immigration debate}}
In 2004, [[United States]] [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] proposed a [[guest worker]] program to absorb migrant laborers who would otherwise come to the U.S. as [[illegal alien]]s. However, the details were left to legislators. In 2005, the [[United States Congress|Congress]] began creating legislation to change the current [[illegal immigration]] policies. The legislation approved by the U.S. [[House of Representatives]] led to massive protests.

See also [[2006 United States immigration reform protests]].

==Legal issues==

===U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service employes controversies===
====Misconduct charges====
In September 2005, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service reported that there were over 2,500 cases of their employees facing misconduct charges involving exchanging immigration benefits for sex, bribery, and influences by foreign governments to assist in violations of U.S. border security. In addition, another 50 such cases are being added weekly. These include cases turned over to the CIS and might not be the complete list according to sources speaking to the Washington Times [http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051003-122319-3501r.htm].
Several other news agencies have also reported known cases of the U.S. Border Patrol supporting trespassing of U.S. borders.
<ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/81082.php Border agent accused of hiding an illegal entrant]</ref>
<ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/65117.php U.S. border agent indicted]</ref>. Agents have also been discovered to be illegal immigrants themselves conspiring to smuggle illegal aliens.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20050805-9999-7m5agent.html Border agent said to also be smuggler]</ref>

A [[CNN]] report by [[Lou Dobbs]] aired on October 3, 2005 reads: <ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/03/ldt.01.html Transcript, Lou Dobb Tonight] Retrieved Auf 2006</ref>
<blockquote>Alarming charges are being leveled tonight against the agency that makes key national security decisions about just who wins U.S. citizenship. Critics say the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service is plagued by employee misconduct, corruption, and may be giving green cards to foreigners who threaten our national security.</blockquote>

Not only have charges been filed, in some cases, the Border Patrol agents have pled guilty (such as the case of Pablo Sergio Berry<ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/94491.php Border agent pleads guilty to harboring illegal entrant]</ref>) or been found guilty in a court of law (such as the case of Oscar Antonio Ortiz who was found to have smuggled more than 100 aliens across the border<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2249419 Border Agent Gets 5 Years for Smuggling] ABC News. July 28, 2006</ref>.

====Allegations of abuse====
In addition, there are allegations of abuse such as the ones reported by Jesus A. Trevino, that concludes in an article published in the ''Houston Journal of International Law'' (2006) with a request to create an independent review commission to oversee the actions of the [[Border Patrol]], and that creating such review board will make the American public aware of the "serious problem of abuse that exists at the border by making this review process public" and that "illegal immigrants deserve the same constitutionally-mandated humane treatment of citizens and legal residents". <ref>Trevino, Jesus A. ''Border Violence against Illegal Immigrants and the Need to Change the Border Patrol's Current Complaint Review Process,'' Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 21.1 (1998): pp.85, 8 Aug. 2006. "What is required is a permanent independent review commission to investigate complaints of Border Patrol abuse. An independent review commission would ensure impartial and thorough investigations, and it would hold Border Patrol agents accountable for their actions. The internal nature of the Justice Department's current complaint review procedure keeps most Americans uneducated about the problems of abuse that exist at the border. This in turn creates an attitude of indifference when a few of the incidents reach the media. Creating an independent citizen review board would make the American public aware of the serious problem of abuse that exists at the border by making this review process public. Illegal immigrants deserve the same constitutionally-mandated humane treatment expected by American citizens and legal residents. Border Patrol abuse of illegal immigrants must end."</ref>

An article by Journal article by Michael Huspek, Leticia Jimenez, Roberto Martinez (1998) cites that in December 1997, John Case, head of the INS Office of Internal Audit (OIA), announced at a press conference that public complaints to the INS had risen 29% from 1996, with the "vast majority" of complaints emanating from the southwest border region, but that of of the 2,300 cases, the 243 cases of serious allegations of abuse were down in 1997. These serious cases are considered to be distinct from less serious complaints, such as "verbal abuse, discrimination, extended detention without cause." <ref> Huspek, Michael, Jimenez, Leticia, Martinez, Roberto ''Violations of Human and Civil Rights on the U.S.-Mexico Border, 1995 to 1997: A Report'', Social Justice, Vol. 25, 1998. "The data compiled in this report suggest that law enforcement in the southwest region of the United States may be verging on lawlessness. This statement receives fuller support from announcements emanating from the INS. In December 1997, John Chase, head of the INS Office of Internal Audit (OIA), announced at a press conference that public complaints to the INS had risen 29% from 1996, with the "vast majority" of complaints emanating from the southwest border region. Over 2,300 complaints were filed in 1997 as opposed to the 1,813 complaints filed in 1996. Another 400 reports of "minor misconduct" were placed in a new category. Chase was quick to emphasize, however, that the 243 "serious" allegations of abuse and use of excessive force that could warrant criminal prosecution were down in 1997, as compared with the 328 in 1996. These "serious" cases are considered to be distinct from less serious complaints, such as "verbal abuse, discrimination, extended detention without cause."</ref>

===Birth citizenship and illegal immigration===
Before passage of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], in 1865 after the conclusion of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], the United States commonly granted citizenship on the basis of [[jus soli]]. The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to protect newly emancipated [[freedmen|former slaves]], and in keeping with the jus soli tradition of the Republic has been interpreted by the [[United States Supreme Court]], in precedent set by ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'' in 1898, to cover everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents, with the exception of the children of diplomats. The decision in ''Wong Kim Ark'' upheld the ''jus soli'' which had often been practiced before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In short, the Court found that the 14th Amendment re-affirmed ''jus soli''. ''Wong Kim Ark'' did not overturn or weaken ''Elk v. Wilkins''; it simply defined ''jus soli''. The Court found that Wong Kim Ark, having been born to Chinese citizens, who were lawfully residing within the United States, and with the intention of amicably obeying its laws, was a citizen of the United States. Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are explicitly not citizens:
* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Children born to [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the [[Indian Citizenship Act of 1924]])
The following persons born in the United States are explicitly citizens:
* Children born to US citizens
* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people, and obeying its laws.

Under these rulings, the citizenship status of the U.S.-born children of [[illegal immigrant]]s is in the same gray area as people born in foreign countries of foreign parents - that is, neither ruling explicitly denies or grants them citizenship. Various aspects of both ''Elk v. Wilkins'' and ''Wong Kim Ark'' lend reasoning that such children are not US citizens. ''Wong Kim Ark'' is often cited as granting the children of illegal aliens US citizenship, but the ruling is explicit in that it applies to the children of aliens who are legally within the United States. Some may even argue that it implicitly denies them citizenship by doing so. However, in terms of Supreme Court rulings, or the rulings of any court, implicit is meaningless. The ''status quo'' is that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens, and it will remain that way until government policy changes or is challenged, and the Supreme Court inevitably makes an explicit ruling.

Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a [[constitutional amendment]]. The proposed changes are usually one of the following:
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or [[permanent resident]] (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States (requires an Act of Congress, probably challenged to the Supreme Court).

Representative [[Nathan Deal]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] of [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], introduced legislation in [[2005]] to assert that U.S.-born children are only "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (and therefore eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment) if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Similarly, Representative [[Ron Paul]] of [[Texas]] has introduced a constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Neither of these measures has come to a vote. Even if Rep. Deal's legislation were passed by Congress, it would likely be struck down by the courts based on the precedent established in ''U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark'', which allows for the US born children of lawful visitors to be citizens as well. The issue remains controversial, reflecting both tensions about immigration and disputes about the appropriate balance of power between the courts and the Congress.

Children of families where at least one parent is an illegal immigrant are sometimes referred to as ''[[Anchor baby|anchor babies]]'' because once the illegal family's mother gives birth to the baby inside the U.S., the baby is said to "anchor" them to the U.S.. Legally the illegal parent or parents can still be deported so the anchor is more perceived than real. However, some illegal immigrant advocates and some of the children with parents of mixed legal immigration status feel the term "Anchor Baby" is [[pejorative]].

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, "383,000, or 42 percent, of births to immigrants are to illegal alien mothers. Thus births to illegals now account for nearly 1 out of every 10 births in the United States"[http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back805release.html]

===Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986===
The [[Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]] (IRCA) made the hiring of an individual without documents an offense for the first time. Enforcement has been lax, but major businesses have often been found to use illegal immigrants. The act is somewhat redundant since the forging of government documents (fake immigration documents or providing falsified social security numbers) is already a felony, and for most companies such documents must be provided to the government in its tax filings. However, the government does not notify those whose identities have been stolen for the falsified social security numbers, thus making it difficult to estimate the extent of the problem. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/]

===Legal cases===
Some major companies have been accused of hiring undocumented workers.

* [[Tyson Foods]] was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its [[chicken]] packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee acquitted the company after evidence was presented that [[Tyson Foods]] went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.
* [[Wal-Mart]] was convicted of using illegal sub contracted [[janitor|janitorial]] workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge or permission.
* [[Philippe Kahn]], who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company [[Borland International]] without ever getting [[United States Permanent Resident Card|proper legal status]].

===Immigration with and without quotas===
The immigration quota system was first expanded with the [[Emergency Quota Act]] of 1921 which was used to reduce the influx of East and Southern European immigrants who were coming to the country in large numbers from the turn of the century. This immigration was further reduced by the [[Immigration Act of 1924]] which was structured to maintain the cultural and ethnic traditions of the United States.

There has never been a quota for Jews or any other religious group, only for people from specific countries. The waiting list for the few available immigration spots grew enormously in the 1930s in the U.S. and throughout the free world that was accepting any immigration. In the 1930's the number of Jewish immigrant applicants seeking visa to the U.S. alone exceeded the quota for all of Germany. [[Adolf Hitler]] started his [[Holocast]] program in the 1930's that ultimately led to the death of over 10,000,000 people including 6,000,000 Jews. The [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] administration had nearly shut down immigration during the decade of the [[Great Depression of 1929]]. In 1929 there were 279,678 immigrants recorded and in 1933 there were only 23,068 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. By 1939 recorded immigrants had crept back up to 82,998 but then the advent of World War II drove it back down to 23,725 in 1943 increasing slowly to 38,119 by 1945 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. After 1946 about 600,000 of Europe's Displaced Person (DP's) refugees were admitted under special laws outside the country quotas, and in the 1960s and 1970s large numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/] were admitted under special laws outside all quotas. Congress passed the [[Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965]] which esssentially removed all nation-specific quotas, while retaining an overall quota, and included immigrants from Mexico and the Western Hemisphere for the first time with their own quotas. It also put a large part of immigration, so-called family reunification, outside the quota system. This dramatically changed the number, type and composition of the new arrivals from mostly European, to predominantly poor [[Latino]] and [[Asian]]. It also dramatically increased the number of illegal immigrants as many poorer people now had family or friends in the U.S. that attracted them there. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] In 1986, the [[Immigration Reform and Control Act]] (IRCA) was passed, creating amnesty for about 3,000,000 illegal immigrants already in the United States. Critics believe IRCA just intensified the illegal immigration flow as those granted amnesty illegally brought more of their friends and family into the U.S.. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

Without quotas on large segments of the immigration flow, legal immigration to the U.S. surged and soon became largely family based "Chain immigration" where familys brought in a never ending chain of off quota new immigrant family members. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States are now at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000. Net Illegal immigration has also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970's, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980's to over 500,000 per year in the 1990's to over 700,000 per year in the 2000's. Total illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf], [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html])

See also: [[Immigration to the United States]]

===Other===
There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics.
* During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents.
* [[Linda Chavez]], [[Zoe Baird]] and [[Tom Tancredo]] are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "[[Nannygate]]". In Tancredo's case, a home contractor allegedly hired illegal aliens.

==Historical context==
Every wave of immigration into the United States has faced fear and hostility, especially during times of economic hardship, political turmoil, or war: in 1882, Congress passed the [[Chinese Exclusion Act (United States)|Chinese Exclusion Act]], one of our nation's first immigration laws, to keep out all people of Chinese origin; during the "Red Scare" of the 1920s, thousands of foreign-born people suspected of political radicalism were arrested and brutalized; many were deported without a hearing; and in 1942, 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned in camps until the end of World War II.
===Chinese experience===
In 1882 the Chinese Exclusion Act had cut off nearly all [[China|Chinese]] immigration. The first laws creating a [[quota]] for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers. Ngai (2003) shows that the new laws were the beginning of mass illegal immigration, because they created a new class of persons - illegal aliens - whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility. This contradiction challenged received notions of sovereignty and democracy in several ways. First, the increase in the number of illegal entries created a new emphasis on control of the nation's borders - especially the long Canadian border. Second, the application of the deportation laws gave rise to an oppositional political and legal discourse, which imagined "deserving" and "undeserving" illegal immigrants and, therefore, just and unjust deportations. These categories were constructed out of modern ideas about crime, sexual morality, the family, and race. In the 1930s federal deportation policy became the object of legal reform to allow for administrative discretion in deportation cases. Just as restriction and deportation "made" illegal aliens, administrative discretion "unmade" illegal aliens. Administrative law reform became an unlikely site where problems of national belonging and inclusion played out.

===History of border security===
For a period of time in the 1990s U.S. Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal aliens and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR infrared devices, and helicopters. In conjunction with the U.S. Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. Sher Zieve claims this was very effective but temporary as the illegal traffic resumed as soon as the military withdrew.[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]. After the [[September 11, 2001 attack]]s the United States looked at the feasibility of placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure. [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4018573.html]], [http://newsfromtheborder.blogspot.com/2006/07/del-rio-border-influx-drops.html], [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/national-guard-presence-cutting-number.php]

In December, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to build a [[separation barrier]] along parts of the border not already protected by a separation barriers. A later vote in the [[United States Senate]] on [[May 17]], [[2006]], included a plan to blockade 860 miles of the border with vehicle barriers and triple-layer fencing along with granting amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and roughly doubling legal immigration. [[Bay Buchanan]], head of [[Team America]], an [[immigration reduction]] [[political action committee]], estimated that it would take less than six months to build a 2,000 mile, triple-layer fence and would cost roughly $1.5 - 3 billion. On the same show, Buchanan claimed that the 1990s-era border security program [[Operation Gatekeeper]] cut down unauthorized immigration by 90%. The actual numbers are not quite that high with 565,581 apprehensions in San Diego district in fiscal year 1992 before Operation Gatekeeper and its enhanced border fencing and policing to a low of 100,681 apprehensions in in 2002--an 82% reduction. Apprehensions in 2006 are at 138,608 or a 75% reduction. [http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/news/SDUT-4-16-06.pdf]
Apprehensions have gone up in other areas as border security was enhanced in San Diego and El Paso which saw a similar drop in apprehensions.

== References and footnotes ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />
</div>

==Further reading==
* Barkan, Elliott R. "Return of the Nativists? California Public Opinion and Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s." ''Social Science History'' 2003 27(2): 229-283. in Project Muse
* Cull, Nicholas J. and Carrasco, Davíd, ed. ''Alambrista and the US-Mexico Border: Film, Music, and Stories of Undocumented Immigrants'' U. of New Mexico Press, 2004. 225 pp.
* Thomas J. Espenshade; "Unauthorized Immigration to the United States" ''Annual Review of Sociology''. Volume: 21. 1995. pp 195+.
* Flores, William V. "New Citizens, New Rights: Undocumented Immigrants and Latino Cultural Citizenship" ''Latin American Perspectives'' 2003 30(2): 87-100
* Lisa Magaña, ''Straddling the Border: Immigration Policy and the INS'' (2003
* Mohl, Raymond A. "Latinization in the Heart of Dixie: Hispanics in Late-twentieth-century Alabama" ''Alabama Review'' 2002 55(4): 243-274. Issn: 0002-4341
* Ngai, Mae M. ''Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America'' (2004),
* Ngai, Mae M. "The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921-1965" ''Law and History Review'' 2003 21(1): 69-107. Issn: 0738-2480 Fulltext in History Cooperative

== See also ==
* [[Immigration reduction]]
* [[United States immigration debate]]
* [[Free immigration]]
* [[History of US immigration]]
* [[Immigrant deaths along the United States Border]]
* [[Melting Pot]]
* [[Mexifornia]]
* [[Migra]]
* [[Nativism]]
* [[NumbersUSA]]
* [[H-1B visa]]
* [[Mara Salvatrucha]]
* [[Minuteman Project]]
* [[S. 2611]]

==External links==
===News Coverage===
* [[Orange County Register]]: “ 'Visa overstayers' fuel illegal population” - April 5, 2006 [http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1087193.php]
* [[USA Today]]: Text of President Bush's Immigration Law Reform Speech on May 16, 2006 [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-15-bush-speech-text_x.htm?csp=34]
* [[CNN]]: Reaction to Bush immigration speech - May 15, 2006 [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration.reax/index.html]
* [[Miami Herald]]: “No human being is `illegal” – May 24, 2006 [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14652801.htm]
* [[Washington Post]]: “One Sheriff sees immigration answer as simple – May 20, 2006 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]
* [[Associated Press]]: “Ariz. Posse to Arrest Illegal Immigrants” –May 4, 2006 [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html]
* [[NY Times]] “Arizona County Uses New Law to Look for Illegal Immigrants” –May 9, 2006 [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]
* [[City Journal]] “How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy” –no date [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] A publication of [[The Manhattan Institute]]

===Others===
*Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS22026.pdf] a report of the [[Congressional Research Service]] (January 13, 2005) provided by the [[Federation of American Scientists]].

[[Category:Immigration law]]
[[Category:Immigration to the United States]]
[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Legal categories of people]]

[[es:Inmigración ilegal]]

Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-09T01:52:18Z

71.74.209.82: Harassment and Request for Mediation

Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-09T01:27:44Z

71.74.209.82: removing off topic content

{{mergeto|United States immigration debate}}

'''Illegal immigration to the United States''' refers to the migration of people across the [[border|national borders]] of the [[United States]] that is in violation of U.S. [[Immigration law|immigration]] and [[United States nationality law|nationality law]]. The terms ''illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented alien, undocumented immigrant'', and ''undocumented worker'', are common terms used to refer to persons residing in the United States without either U.S. [[citizenship]] or a valid immigration status. <ref>The [[Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS) defines unauthorized immigrants as “foreign-born persons who entered without inspection or who violated the terms of a temporary admission and who have not acquired Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status or gained temporary protection against removal by applying for an immigration benefit. For example, the following foreign-born persons are not considered to be unauthorized residents in these estimates: refugees, asylees, and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and aliens who are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings. [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf]</ref>.
In the United States the term ‘’undocumented alien’’ typically refers to a foreign national who entered the country without valid travel documents or that overstayed the limited period of time granted upon entry. For example, a tourist who enters with a valid [B1 visa] and is granted a stay of 15 days and remains in-country for 30 days is an ‘’undocumented alien’’. The holder of a valid B1 (tourist) visa is barred from accepting employment. By accepting employment this hypothetical tourist becomes an ‘’undocumented worker’’ (whether he is an ‘’undocumented alien’’ or not). Not all ‘’undocumented aliens’’ are ‘’undocumented workers’’. For example, the visas overstay tourist who doesn’t work or the illegal crossing stay-at-home wife.
{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrants Info||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Education Profile||Number||Percent||
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Less then 12 yr.||align="right"|6,700,000||67.0%||
|-
!align="right"|High School||align="right"|3,000,000||30.0%||
|-
!align="right"|College Graduate||align="right"|300,000||3.0%||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Total Illegal Pop.||align="right"|12,000,000 ||Jan 2006||
|-
!align="right"|Total Working||align="right"|7,500,000
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Caught|| align="right"|202,842||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Deported|| align="right"|88,895||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Caught and Released|| align="right"|1,010,000+||2005||
|-
!align="right"|Illegal Immigrants/year|| align="right"|1,500,000+||Total||
|-
!align="right"|Voluntary returns/year||align="right"| - 200,000+||2005
|-
!align="right"|Change of Status/year||align="right"| - 600,000+||2005
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Net Increase/year||align="right"| 700,000+||Illegal Immigrants||
|-
|colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] A Description of the Immigrant Population [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2] 
|}

==Methods used to enter the U.S. illegally==
===Overview===
According to the 1997 report issued by the Binational Study on Migration and commissioned by the U.S. and Mexican governments,
* One-third or 2.3 to 2.4 million of the Mexican-born US residents are unauthorized, despite the legalization of two million unauthorized Mexicans in 1987-88, and subsequent legal immigration that unified their families.
*The total number of people from all countries who entered illegally or overstayed their visas in 1996 was estimated by the INS to be 275,000
*US sources suggest that the number of Mexican-born persons increased by two million between 1990 and 1996, and the binational study estimated that legal immigrants were the smallest part of the increase, 510,000, followed by unauthorized, 630,000, and then 760,000 SAWs and their family members. <ref>Migration News Vol. 13 No. 3, December 2006 [http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=1329_0_5_0 Migration News website] Retrieved Aug 2006</ref>

Three years later, in 2000, [[United States presidential election, 2000|US Presidential]] candidate [[Patrick Buchanan]] ([[Reform Party of the United States of America|Reform Party]]) asserted during an interview on [[National Public Radio]] that half a million people a year (a little less than double the figure the Binational Study stated)
are entering the USA illegally.<ref>Patrick Buchanan, National Public Radio interview, "Talk of the Nation", May 30, 2000). "Our levels of immigration now in the last 30 years have been enormous. It’s almost over a million legal immigrants a year, and half a million illegals who come here and stay." </ref>

According to the [[Pew Hispanic Center]] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. By 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. <ref>Rise, Peak and Decline: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004, Pew Hispanic Center [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53 Available online]</ref>

Another report of the Pew Hispanic center, cites that 45% of unauthorized migrants, had initially visas for limited amounts of time, bur over-stayed their visas, and that a small percentage of these entered the country from Mexico by means of a [[Border Crossing Card]]. <ref>Pew Hispanic Center, ''Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population '' (May 2006) [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]"As much as 45% of the total unauthorized migrant population entered the country with visas that allowed them to reside in the U.S. for a limited amount of time. Known as "overstayers", these migrants became part of the unauthorized population when they remained in the country after their visas had expired. Another small share of the unauthorized migrant population entered the country legally from Mexico using a Border Crossing Card, a document that allows short visits limited to the border region, and then violated the terms of admission. The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."</ref>

====Illegal border crossing====
{{sectNPOV}}
That same article goes on to state, "The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."
[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]
meaning that they crossed a border without passing possible criminal or health inspection or having a valid passport and [[Visa (document)|visa]] inspected by an immigration officer at a Port of Entry (POE). It is estimated that over a million people cross the border illegally each year, most of whom are of Mexican origin{fact}. The rest are labeled "Other Than Mexicans" (OTM), of whom a majority are [[Central America]]ns{fact}.

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a [[misdemeanor]] for the first offense and a [[felony]] for subsequent violations{{fact}}. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the future{{fact}}. Immigrants who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. [[H.R. 4437]] would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

According to a report by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary on 1997, "Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling."<ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM ORDER SECURITY AND DETERRING ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary</ref>
Another large scale multi-million dollar criminal operations connected to illegal immigration is identity theft. [http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html]
The higher crime rates associated with all this traffic has led to extensive efforts on the part of individual sheriffs and communities trying to prevent further damage to their property and communities. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html], [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html], [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss], [[http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]

In 2006 the number of apprehensions on the border is almost the same as last year through 16 July 2006 at 936,000 [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20060722-9999-1n22crossers.html ]. However, according to many US Border Patrol agents, they were instructed by their leadership to "keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited" as one US Border Patrol agent put it [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm].
Some of the traffic has spread away from the dangerous Tucson districts deserts where over a hundred illegal immigrants have died so far this year compared to 153 in 2005. [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060722/images/border.pdf]

[[Image:ElPaso-Juarez-EO.JPG|thumb|right|200px|El Paso (top) and Ciudad Juárez (bottom) seen from earth orbit; the Rio Grande is the thin line separating the two cities through the middle of the photograph.]]
[[Image:TJ Border Beach.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Beach at Border Field State Park near [[San Ysidro, California]]. (Tire tracks from Border Patrol jeeps are visible on the beach.)]]

Border Patrol activity is concentrated around big border cities such as [[San Diego, California|San Diego]] and [[El Paso, Texas|El Paso]] which already have [[separation barriers]] and extensive Border Agent coverage. Each state in the United States has a [[United States National Guard|National Guard]] organization that could, in principal, be placed on the border at a state governor's discretion to assist with border security; many states also have a backup to the National Gurard called the [[State Defense Force]] that could, in an emergency, also be activated for this purpose. Arizona and New Mexico have currently declared the counties that border [[Mexico]] to be under serious duress caused by uncontrolled illegal immigrant traffic, thereby enabling governors to deploy National Guardsmen to the international border. Arizona has exercised this option but New Mexico has not.

In an article published by Renew America, a website which defines itself as a "Alan Keyes' website for grassroots activism -- designed to foster a nationwide movement to restore America to its founding ideals", former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard asserts that "The whole U.S.-Mexico border could be sealed with as few as 100 helicopters equipped with FLIR (forward looking infrared) scopes, and a few hundred men equipped with state of the art sensors, scopes and other electronics..." [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]

See also [[United States–Mexico border]], [[United States-Canada border]].

=====From countries with no visa agreements=====
Immigrants from nations that do not have automatic visa agreements, or who would not otherwise qualify for a visa, sometimes cross the borders illegally. Individuals from [[North Korea]], [[Libya]], [[Cuba]], [[Syria]], [[Sudan]], and [[Iran]] are required to submit to strict questioning from U.S. officials before their applications are processed. Their applications take longer to process than those for visitors and immigrants from other countries. [http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1300.html]

Often, these individuals enter from a land border using falsified documentation from a third country. For instance, [[Ahmed Ressam]], a member of [[Al Qaeda]], originally from [[Algeria]], entered [[Canada]] with a falsified [[France|French]] passport. Once in Canada, he procured a false Canadian passport to enter the United States. In the case of Cuba, the U.S. offers political asylum to many Cubans, but they first must reach U.S. soil. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//shows/trail/etc/fake.html]

====Visa or Border Crossing Card overstayers====

A visa overstayer is someone who has entered the United States legally and then illegally overstayed his or her visa or violated the restrictions on Border Crossing Card (BCC) or laser visa. Fraudulent and forged visa and BCC passes are included in this category. An estimated average 40-60% of all illegal immigrants to the U.S. entered this way. The number of overstayers varies considerably from country to country depending on the location of the country, the cultural, political, social and economic conditions in a given country in a given time. The PEW Hispanic institute reported [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf] that the INS had developed statistics that showed 3.2% of all Central and South America visas are overstayed. A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study gives estimates for all countries showing that China, India, Korea, and the Philippines had violation rates as high as 8%.[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] In general the poorer the country they came from the more likely the foreign visitor was to violate their visa.

GAO estimated that 40-60% of all Mexican illegal immigrants got here by violating their border crossing document's conditions. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] In operation Tarmac where ICE and DHS checked airport employees for legal employment they found 27% of the over 4900 violators found were visa or BCC violators. In one of the rare ICE check ups on a grocery chain they found that over 57% of the several hundred violators were visa overstayers or BCC violators ([http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf| Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered Defense]) patrol officials believe Visa violator numbers would increase if it became more difficult to illegally sneak across the border as illegal border crossers switched techniques. About 33% of all Central American illegal immigrants came by overstaying their visa with the rest traveling through Mexico to reach the border and then crossing illegally. At lest 95+% of all illegal South American, European, and Asians got here by overstaying their visa. (The other ~5% represent illegal immigrants smuggled by ship or plane) An increasing number of illegal immigrants are now flying to Mexico or Canada and then crossing the border illegally by foot or car. The ICE agents on the border report a 52% increase in border violators caught that are Other Than Mexican (OTM). The two main sources of illegal visa violators are Mexico and Canada which the U.S. has a large amount of cross border traffic with. Other estimates done by the GAO show that the overstayers and BCC violators from Mexico alone in the year 2001 may exceed 2,000,000 /year. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/border_crossing_entry_data/us_mexico/index.html] reported that in 2003 (the last year of available statistics) there were 79,000,000 and 245,000,000 border crossings between Canada and Mexico respectively and the US. The tourist bureau shows that there were less Mexicans (as reported by their government) doing all this traffic than their were Canadians (as reported by their government).[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] Mexico has roughly three times the population of Canada. The latest ICE statistics show that they captured 30,000 Brazilians after they crossed the U.S. Mexican border illegally for the first time in 2004. Two of the terrorists behind the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] were visa overstayers. The federal government historically has not extensibly checked up on visa holders once they are in the country; but visa checks has been used extensively after 9 September 2001 to check up on illegal immigrants from countries with large populations sympathic to terrorists. Several hundred visa violators were deported and several thousand more left voluntarily rather than face deportation hearings. {{fact}}

To help improve the lack of good information on visa overstayers the new US-VISIT program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States as well as requiring electronic readable passports containing this information. Information collected is checked against lookout databases to ensure that known or suspected terrorists, criminals, and previous U.S. immigration law violators are not admitted. [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-11_Feb05.pdf] and then checked against their eventual departure. US-VISIT entry procedures have been operational in the secondary inspection areas of the 50 busiest land border ports of entry since December 29, 2004, and are also in place at 115 airports and 15 seaports.[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4858] Early in 2007 the DHS is hoping to replace the laser visa or boundary crossing cards with People Access Security Service (PASS) card, as a secure identity document for people traveling to or from Canada or Mexico. [http://www.thebta.org/syndicate/news/archives/cat_us-visit.html] These would include Radio Frequency Identification Data (RFID) for ease of transit and security.

Visa overstayers violators tend to be somewhat more educated and be better off financially than those who walked crossed the border illegally. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0205/p01s03-usju.html] The financial and education status of the thousands of BCC or laser visa violators is unknown; but is probably very similar to the illegal border crossers who walked across since they both come from the same population base.

One common means of visa overstaying is coming to the U.S. on a student visa and not going to school or not leaving the country after finishing school. [http://ktla.trb.com/la-me-visa22may22,0,2677069.story?coll=ktla-home-3] The number of foreign students in the United States is over 600,000.

==Profile summaries of illegal immigrants==
<center>
{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"
!align=“center”! colspan=8 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Profile Summaries of Illegal Immigrants January 2006
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
||Job Category||% of Illegal Immigrant||% of Native -1 w/8+ yr sch.||% of Average Native||# Illegal Immigrant||# Native 8+ yr sch.||# Average Native
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Managerial / Self Employed||1.50%||5.9%||32.2%||108,000||758,000||33,810,000
|-
!align=“right”|Retail / Business||4.90%||15.2%||29.2%||352,800||1,952,700||30,660,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Private||1.20%||1.0%||0.3%||86,400||128,500||315,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farm Mgr||1.60%||1.6%||1.1%||115,200||205,600||1,155,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Retail||18.20%||20.3%||10.3%||1,310,400||2,607,900||10,815,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farming -2||17.50%||2.9%||1.0%||1,260,000||372,600||1,050,000
|-
!align=“right”|Production||22.0%||20.1%||11.9%||1,584,000||2,582,200||12,495,000
|-
!align=“right”|Construction||33.0%||33.1%||14.0%||2,376,000||4,252,400||14,700,000
|-
|||||||||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Total # Working||7,500,000||12,847,000||108,000,000||||||
|-
!align="right"|Labor rate of Participation -3||82%||46.3%||66.30%||||||
|-
!align="right"|Unemployment Rate||7.0%||7.0%||4.10%||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Country Profile||||||Sex / age Profile||||||Worker profile||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Mexican|| 6,840,000 ||57%||men 18-39||5,300,000||43.7%||align="right"|4,500,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Latin & Central Amer.|| align="right"|3,000,000 ||25%||women 18-39||align="right"|3,500,000 ||29.1%|| align="right"|2,000,000 ||60%
|-
!align="right"|Asia|| 1,080,000 ||9%||more than 40|| 1,300,000 ||10.7%||align="right"|1,000,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Europe + Canada|| 720,000 ||6%||less than 18||align="right"|2,040,000 ||17.0%||align="right"|200,000 ||10%
|-
!align="right"|Rest of World|| 480,000 ||4%||Born / yr.||align="right"|300,000||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Totals Jan 2006||12,100,000 ||||Total Pop.||12,400,000||Total Working||7,500,000
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / year||align="right"|700,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||See Note 7
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / Month||align="right"|60,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||
|-
|}
</center>

# Native Population that most closely matches Illegal immigrant population is workers that never graduated from high school.
# Farm work is the only job category that illegal immigrants uniquely fill; but it does have a 30,000 H2-A visa program for it!
# Rate of Participation is fraction of total population seeking work
# Average Education of illegal immigrants may be less if the ~30% Central American's are included.
# How many criminals turn around after deportation and return is unknown; but it is significant that ICE catchs more than they deport.
# Estimated number may be low by several hundred thousand
# Other estimates of net increase are over 850,000 illegal immigrants / year.

Information Sources:

*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population
*[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2]A Description of the Immigrant Population
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm] Labor Participation less than High School
* [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1204.html] Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't
*[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/AnnualReportEnforcement2004.pdf] Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2004
*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/16.pdf] The Labor Force Status of Short-Term Unauthorized Workers
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf] Labor Statistics

==Illegal immigration economics – NSF study==
The economics of illegal immigration are a highly contentious issue with much conflicting information presented. In 1990 the Congress appointed a bipartisan [[Commission on Immigration Reform]] to review the nation's policies and laws and to recommend changes. Information about the commission and its reports are available at http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/. In turn, the commission in 1995 asked the National Research Council of the National Science Foundation to convene a panel of experts to assess the demographic, economic, and fiscal consequences of immigration. The panel was asked to lay a scientific

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Education, Income and Taxes||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||Asia||Latin America||Other||U.S. / CA
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align =“right”|Years of Education *||14.2||14.7||9.2||12+||14.4
|-
!align =“right”|Household Income *||$42k||$57k||$32k||$42k||42k
|-
!align =“right”|Effective Federal tax rate **||18.7%||22%||5%||18.7%||18.7%
|-
!align =“right”|Effective State tax rate ***||10%||12%||9%||10%||10.9%
|-
!align =“right”|Average Federal taxes ||$7.9k||$12.5k||$1.6k||$7.9k||$7.9k
|-
!align =“right”|Average State taxes||$4.2k||$6.8k||$2.9||$4.2k||$4.5k
|-
|colspan=6|<hr>

|-
|colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' * Census data [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/effect2004/effect2004.html] **Average federal tax data from CBO estimates of effective Federal tax rates [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] ***State taxes are from California Statistical Abstract [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/STAT-ABS/toc.htm] Note: Most of the Federal and state taxes are paid by households earning significantly more than average.

|}

foundation for policymaking on some specific Immigration issues. [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/1.html]
The panel consisted of over 15 well respected professors from highly ranked universities [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The National Science Foundation panels charge was to address three key questions:
# What is the effect of immigration on the future size and composition of the U.S. population?
# What is the influence of immigration on the overall economy?
# What is the fiscal impact of immigration on federal, state, and local governments?
The report by 15+ researchers was issued after 3 years study was called “The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration” (1997) Edited by James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, ISBN 0-309-06356-6. The book is available on line at [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The enclosed table summarizes some of the National Academy of Sciences main conclusions.

'''"As long as there is a virtually unlimited supply of potential immigrants, the nation must make choices on how many to admit and who they should be."''' National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1997.

{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| National Science Foundation Immigrant Economics Federal State Local Net Annual Fiscal Impact per Household [1997]||
|-
| colspan=12|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||%||Asia||%||Latin America||%||Other||%||All||% ||Total Cost *
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>
|--
!align =“right”|California||$1,631||26%||$1,081||25%|| ($7,206)||43%||$3,313||6%||($2.206)||100%|| ($20.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449||26%||$2,022||25%|| ($5,625)||43%||$3,052||6%|| ($1,613)||100%|| ($15.0) billion 
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrant Economics **
|-
!align =“right”|California||$1,631 ||6%||$1,081 ||9%|| ($7,206)||81%||$3,313 ||4%|| ($5,509)||100%|| ($22.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449 ||6%||$2,022 ||9%|| ($5,625)||81%||$3,052 ||4%|| ($4,225)||100%|| ($17.0) billion 
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>

|-
|colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' ''The New Americans'', National Science Foundation Table 6.4, pg 284[http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/284.html] * Total costs calculated for all U.S. immigrants, legal and illegal, 9.166 million households 1995 ** No adjustments for changes since 1995, assumes 4 million illegal households, percent distribution from Pew 
|}

==Other Economic Studies==

Previous studies (and many subsequent} of the fiscal impacts of immigration were found to have serious deficiencies. Indeed in 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available. Many of these represented not science but advocacy from both sides of the immigration debate. These studies often offered an incomplete accounting of either the full list of taxpayer costs and benefits by ignoring some programs and taxes while including others. More important, the conceptual foundation of this research was rarely explicitly stated, offering opportunities to tilt the research toward the desired result. [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/2.html]

In an article that appeared in the ''World Policy Journal'' (1994), Peter Andreas asserts that constraining the flow of illegal immigration in states such as California, may result in economic stagnation. <ref>Andreas, Peter, ''The Making of Amerexico (Mis)Handling Illegal Immigration,'' World Policy Journal Vol. 11.2 (1994): pp.55. "The sad irony is that the most important constraint on the flow of illegal immigrants may be continued economic stagnation in states such as California. In periods of recession, labor markets tighten, reducing em- ployment opportunities--both legal and illegal. Economic recovery, on the other hand--propelled in no small part by the hard work of illegal laborers already here-- would expand opportunities in the labor market, encouraging continued illegal immigration."</ref>

A study by the Rand Corporation, conducted by Kevin McCarthy and Georges Vernez, came to the conclusion that immigrants do not have a negative effect on the earnings and the employment opportunities of native-born Americans. <ref>McCarthy, Kevin F., Vernez, Georges, ''Immigration in a Changing Economy'', Rand Corporation (1997), ISBN 0-8330-2496-5</ref> Their book was sponsored by the [[Department of Defense]] and several foundations, <ref>Martin, Philip, ''Immigration in a Changing Economy: California's Experience,'' Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 25.1 (1999): pp.159</ref>

Contrary to the NSF study, a study by Francine Lipman states that the belief that undocumented migrants are exploting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy, is "undeniable false". Lipman asserts that illegal immigrants provide a net positive benefit to federal coffers, because of the tax law's treatment of those in the country illegally and those who are married to illegal immigrants: they are ineligible for the [[Earned Income Credit]] and the Child Tax Credit, and that 85% of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive impact on the U.S. economy <ref>J. Lipman, Fnacine, J.''Taxing Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation'' [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584 Available online]" Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States' economy. The widespread belief is that illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is undeniably false. [E]very empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates the opposite . . .: undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services. Moreover, undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs. Eighty-five percent of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive (seventy-four percent) or neutral (eleven percent) impact on the U.S. economy."</ref>

The CIS claims that many illegal immigrants use the U.S. welfare program with false identification. [http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back503.html]

Backing up the National Science foundation, another study put the cost to the federal government at $2,700/household [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html] On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal government are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Still another study put the net costs to California residents at $433/household for European/Canadian immigrants, $1,240/household for Asian immigrants and $8,182/household for Latin American workers [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/161.html TABLE 4-7a Net Fiscal Impacts by Nativity of Householder] pg 160-1. These are the costs calculated for all immigrants legal and illegal. The costs for illegal immigrants are significantly higher since they have even less education, earn even less income and often avoid paying even the small taxes they are elgible for.

Madeleine Cosman contends that the requirement of hospitals to offer service to illegal aliens regardless of the alien's ability to pay has led to many hospitals running a deficit and being forced to close.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf] Also, free public education is extended to all children in the U.S. regardless of their citizen status. The matricula consular and passports are usually considered legal identification by many police agencies and governments.

Nearly all modern developed societies like Sweden, Canada and the United States heavily subsidize the cost of all government services for low income people by heavily taxing the higher income people. In the United states the effective federal tax rate considering all federal taxes as calculated by the Congressional Budget office runs from 4.8% for the bottom quintile [0-20%](avg. income = $34k) to 25% for the last quintile [80-100%] of income households. The bottom two income quintiles, with exemptions, are nearly exempt from all income tax and social security taxes are heavily subsidized. Many illegal workers claim they have income tax witheld not bothering to mention it is nearly always negligibly small.[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] The state's tax systems vary more but nearly always tax the higher income people much more than the lower income people.

==2004 illegal immigration debate==
{{main|United States immigration debate}}
In 2004, [[United States]] [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] proposed a [[guest worker]] program to absorb migrant laborers who would otherwise come to the U.S. as [[illegal alien]]s. However, the details were left to legislators. In 2005, the [[United States Congress|Congress]] began creating legislation to change the current [[illegal immigration]] policies. The legislation approved by the U.S. [[House of Representatives]] led to massive protests.

See also [[2006 United States immigration reform protests]].

==Legal issues==

===Legal and political status===

===Citizenship and the children of immigrants===
Before passage of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], in 1865 after the conclusion of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], the United States commonly granted citizenship on the basis of [[jus soli]]. The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to protect newly emancipated [[freedmen|former slaves]], and in keeping with the jus soli tradition of the Republic has been interpreted by the [[United States Supreme Court]], in precedent set by ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'' in 1898, to cover everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents, with the exception of the children of diplomats. The decision in ''Wong Kim Ark'' upheld the ''jus soli'' which had often been practiced before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In short, the Court found that the 14th Amendment re-affirmed ''jus soli''. ''Wong Kim Ark'' did not overturn or weaken ''Elk v. Wilkins''; it simply defined ''jus soli''. The Court found that Wong Kim Ark, having been born to Chinese citizens, who were lawfully residing within the United States, and with the intention of amicably obeying its laws, was a citizen of the United States. Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are explicitly not citizens:
* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Children born to [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the [[Indian Citizenship Act of 1924]])
The following persons born in the United States are explicitly citizens:
* Children born to US citizens
* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people, and obeying its laws.

Under these rulings, the citizenship status of the U.S.-born children of [[illegal immigrant]]s is in the same gray area as people born in foreign countries of foreign parents - that is, neither ruling explicitly denies or grants them citizenship. Various aspects of both ''Elk v. Wilkins'' and ''Wong Kim Ark'' lend reasoning that such children are not US citizens. ''Wong Kim Ark'' is often cited as granting the children of illegal aliens US citizenship, but the ruling is explicit in that it applies to the children of aliens who are legally within the United States. Some may even argue that it implicitly denies them citizenship by doing so. However, in terms of Supreme Court rulings, or the rulings of any court, implicit is meaningless. The ''status quo'' is that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens, and it will remain that way until government policy changes or is challenged, and the Supreme Court inevitably makes an explicit ruling.

Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a [[constitutional amendment]]. The proposed changes are usually one of the following:
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or [[permanent resident]] (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States (requires an Act of Congress, probably challenged to the Supreme Court).

Representative [[Nathan Deal]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] of [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], introduced legislation in [[2005]] to assert that U.S.-born children are only "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (and therefore eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment) if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Similarly, Representative [[Ron Paul]] of [[Texas]] has introduced a constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Neither of these measures has come to a vote. Even if Rep. Deal's legislation were passed by Congress, it would likely be struck down by the courts based on the precedent established in ''U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark'', which allows for the US born children of lawful visitors to be citizens as well. The issue remains controversial, reflecting both tensions about immigration and disputes about the appropriate balance of power between the courts and the Congress.

Children of families where at least one parent is an illegal immigrant are sometimes referred to as ''[[Anchor baby|anchor babies]]'' because once the illegal family's mother gives birth to the baby inside the U.S., the baby is said to "anchor" them to the U.S.. Legally the illegal parent or parents can still be deported so the anchor is more perceived than real. However, some illegal immigrant advocates and some of the children with parents of mixed legal immigration status feel the term "Anchor Baby" is [[pejorative]].

===Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986===
The [[Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]] (IRCA) made the hiring of an individual without documents an offense for the first time. Enforcement has been lax, but major businesses have often been found to use illegal immigrants. The act is somewhat redundant since the forging of government documents (fake immigration documents or providing falsified social security numbers) is already a felony, and for most companies such documents must be provided to the government in its tax filings. However, the government does not notify those whose identities have been stolen for the falsified social security numbers, thus making it difficult to estimate the extent of the problem. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/]

===Legal cases===
Some major companies have been accused of hiring undocumented workers.

* [[Tyson Foods]] was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its [[chicken]] packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee acquitted the company after evidence was presented that [[Tyson Foods]] went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.
* [[Wal-Mart]] was convicted of using illegal sub contracted [[janitor|janitorial]] workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge or permission.
* [[Philippe Kahn]], who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company [[Borland International]] without ever getting [[United States Permanent Resident Card|proper legal status]].

===Use of military to defend border===
See [[United States immigration debate]]

===Immigration with and without quotas===
The immigration quota system was first expanded with the [[Emergency Quota Act]] of 1921 which was used to reduce the influx of East and Southern European immigrants who were coming to the country in large numbers from the turn of the century. This immigration was further reduced by the [[Immigration Act of 1924]] which was structured to maintain the cultural and ethnic traditions of the United States.

There has never been a quota for Jews or any other religious group, only for people from specific countries. The waiting list for the few available immigration spots grew enormously in the 1930s in the U.S. and throughout the free world that was accepting any immigration. In the 1930's the number of Jewish immigrant applicants seeking visa to the U.S. alone exceeded the quota for all of Germany. [[Adolf Hitler]] started his [[Holocast]] program in the 1930's that ultimately led to the death of over 10,000,000 people including 6,000,000 Jews. The [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] administration had nearly shut down immigration during the decade of the [[Great Depression of 1929]]. In 1929 there were 279,678 immigrants recorded and in 1933 there were only 23,068 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. By 1939 recorded immigrants had crept back up to 82,998 but then the advent of World War II drove it back down to 23,725 in 1943 increasing slowly to 38,119 by 1945 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. After 1946 about 600,000 of Europe's Displaced Person (DP's) refugees were admitted under special laws outside the country quotas, and in the 1960s and 1970s large numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/] were admitted under special laws outside all quotas. Congress passed the [[Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965]] which esssentially removed all nation-specific quotas, while retaining an overall quota, and included immigrants from Mexico and the Western Hemisphere for the first time with their own quotas. It also put a large part of immigration, so-called family reunification, outside the quota system. This dramatically changed the number, type and composition of the new arrivals from mostly European, to predominantly poor [[Latino]] and [[Asian]]. It also dramatically increased the number of illegal immigrants as many poorer people now had family or friends in the U.S. that attracted them there. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] In 1986, the [[Immigration Reform and Control Act]] (IRCA) was passed, creating amnesty for about 3,000,000 illegal immigrants already in the United States. Critics believe IRCA just intensified the illegal immigration flow as those granted amnesty illegally brought more of their friends and family into the U.S.. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

Without quotas on large segments of the immigration flow, legal immigration to the U.S. surged and soon became largely family based "Chain immigration" where familys brought in a never ending chain of off quota new immigrant family members. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States are now at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000. Net Illegal immigration has also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970's, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980's to over 500,000 per year in the 1990's to over 700,000 per year in the 2000's. Total illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf], [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html])

See also: [[Immigration to the United States]]

===Other===
There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics.
* During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents.
* [[Linda Chavez]], [[Zoe Baird]] and [[Tom Tancredo]] are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "[[Nannygate]]". In Tancredo's case, a home contractor allegedly hired illegal aliens.

==Historical context==
Every wave of immigration into the United States has faced fear and hostility, especially during times of economic hardship, political turmoil, or war: in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, one of our nation's first immigration laws, to keep out all people of Chinese origin; during the "Red Scare" of the 1920s, thousands of foreign-born people suspected of political radicalism were arrested and brutalized; many were deported without a hearing; and in 1942, 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned in camps until the end of World War II.
===Chinese experience===
In 1882 the [[Chinese Exclusion Act (United States)|Chinese Exclusion Act]] had cut off nearly all [[China|Chinese]] immigration. The first laws creating a [[quota]] for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers. Ngai (2003) shows that the new laws were the beginning of mass illegal immigration, because they created a new class of persons - illegal aliens - whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility. This contradiction challenged received notions of sovereignty and democracy in several ways. First, the increase in the number of illegal entries created a new emphasis on control of the nation's borders - especially the long Canadian border. Second, the application of the deportation laws gave rise to an oppositional political and legal discourse, which imagined "deserving" and "undeserving" illegal immigrants and, therefore, just and unjust deportations. These categories were constructed out of modern ideas about crime, sexual morality, the family, and race. In the 1930s federal deportation policy became the object of legal reform to allow for administrative discretion in deportation cases. Just as restriction and deportation "made" illegal aliens, administrative discretion "unmade" illegal aliens. Administrative law reform became an unlikely site where problems of national belonging and inclusion played out.

===History of border security===
For a period of time in the 1990s U.S. Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal aliens and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR infrared devices, and helicopters. In conjunction with the U.S. Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. Sher Zieve claims this was very effective but temporary as the illegal traffic resumed as soon as the military withdrew.[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]. After the [[September 11, 2001 attack]]s the United States looked at the feasibility of placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure. [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4018573.html]], [http://newsfromtheborder.blogspot.com/2006/07/del-rio-border-influx-drops.html], [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/national-guard-presence-cutting-number.php]

In December, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to build a [[separation barrier]] along parts of the border not already protected by a separation barriers. A later vote in the [[United States Senate]] on [[May 17]], [[2006]], included a plan to blockade 860 miles of the border with vehicle barriers and triple-layer fencing along with granting amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and roughly doubling legal immigration. [[Bay Buchanan]], head of [[Team America]], an [[immigration reduction]] [[political action committee]], estimated that it would take less than six months to build a 2,000 mile, triple-layer fence and would cost roughly $1.5 - 3 billion. On the same show, Buchanan claimed that the 1990s-era border security program [[Operation Gatekeeper]] cut down unauthorized immigration by 90%. The actual numbers are not quite that high with 565,581 apprehensions in San Diego district in fiscal year 1992 before Operation Gatekeeper and its enhanced border fencing and policing to a low of 100,681 apprehensions in in 2002--an 82% reduction. Apprehensions in 2006 are at 138,608 or a 75% reduction. [http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/news/SDUT-4-16-06.pdf]
Apprehensions have gone up in other areas as border security was enhanced in San Diego and El Paso which saw a similar drop in apprehensions.

== References and footnotes ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />
</div>

==Further reading==
* Barkan, Elliott R. "Return of the Nativists? California Public Opinion and Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s." ''Social Science History'' 2003 27(2): 229-283. in Project Muse
* Cull, Nicholas J. and Carrasco, Davíd, ed. ''Alambrista and the US-Mexico Border: Film, Music, and Stories of Undocumented Immigrants'' U. of New Mexico Press, 2004. 225 pp.
* Thomas J. Espenshade; "Unauthorized Immigration to the United States" ''Annual Review of Sociology''. Volume: 21. 1995. pp 195+.
* Flores, William V. "New Citizens, New Rights: Undocumented Immigrants and Latino Cultural Citizenship" ''Latin American Perspectives'' 2003 30(2): 87-100
* Lisa Magaña, ''Straddling the Border: Immigration Policy and the INS'' (2003
* Mohl, Raymond A. "Latinization in the Heart of Dixie: Hispanics in Late-twentieth-century Alabama" ''Alabama Review'' 2002 55(4): 243-274. Issn: 0002-4341
* Ngai, Mae M. ''Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America'' (2004),
* Ngai, Mae M. "The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921-1965" ''Law and History Review'' 2003 21(1): 69-107. Issn: 0738-2480 Fulltext in History Cooperative

== See also ==
* [[Immigration reduction]]
* [[United States immigration debate]]
* [[Free immigration]]
* [[History of US immigration]]
* [[Immigrant deaths along the United States Border]]
* [[Migra]]
* [[Nativism]]
* [[NumbersUSA]]
* [[H-1B visa]]
* [[Mara Salvatrucha]]
* [[Minuteman Project]]
* [[S. 2611]]

==External links==
===News Coverage===
* [[Orange County Register]]: “ 'Visa overstayers' fuel illegal population” - April 5, 2006 [http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1087193.php]
* [[USA Today]]: Text of President Bush's Immigration Law Reform Speech on May 16, 2006 [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-15-bush-speech-text_x.htm?csp=34]
* [[CNN]]: Reaction to Bush immigration speech - May 15, 2006 [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration.reax/index.html]
* [[Miami Herald]]: “No human being is `illegal” – May 24, 2006 [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14652801.htm]
* [[Washington Post]]: “One Sheriff sees immigration answer as simple – May 20, 2006 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]
* [[Associated Press]]: “Ariz. Posse to Arrest Illegal Immigrants” –May 4, 2006 [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html]
* [[NY Times]] “Arizona County Uses New Law to Look for Illegal Immigrants” –May 9, 2006 [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]
* [[City Journal]] “How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy” –no date [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] A publication of [[The Manhattan Institute]]

===Others===
*Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS22026.pdf] a report of the [[Congressional Research Service]] (January 13, 2005) provided by the [[Federation of American Scientists]].

[[Category:Immigration law]]
[[Category:Immigration to the United States]]
[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Legal categories of people]]

[[es:Inmigración ilegal]]

Anchor baby

2006-08-09T01:09:16Z

71.74.209.82:

{{mergefrom|14th Amendment of the United States}}

{{verify}}
'''Anchor baby''' is a colloquial term referring to a child born in the [[United States|US]] to [[illegal immigration to the United States|illegal immigrants]] or other non-citizens. According to Mark Souder, it is pejorative. The term was coined by [[nativists]] to refer to the child's role in facilitating "[[chain migration]]" under the provisions of the [[Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965]]. The baby becomes the "anchor" of the chain by which its family may receive benefits from [[Social welfare|social programs]], and may themselves eventually become citizens of the [[United States]]. The term "anchor babies" is also used to refer to children born to women who are legally in the US on temporary visas (for example a visitor’s visa) when the child's birth is specifically intended to attain citizenship under US law. Sometimes the term '''jackpot baby''' is used interchangeably with, the term anchor baby, however this use is always derogatory.

==Legal Background==
===Fourteenth Amendment===
Proponents of denying Anchor Babies citizenship explicitly reject [[Jus soli]], or birthright citizenship. They insist on a strict [[Jus sanguinis]], "right of blood", process for obtaining the rights of nationality. While both philosophies have long histories in European civilization, the United States Constitution has included implicit acceptance of Jus Soli from the beginning. (e.g. "No person except a [[natural-born citizen]], or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office U.S. Const. art. I, § 5, cl. 5])

The [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] states that:

<blockquote>"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the [[jurisdiction]] thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."</blockquote>

According to [[Congressional Record|Congressional records]] of the original debate on the Amendment, the phrase ''"subject to the [[jurisdiction]] thereof"'' was specifically inserted to make it clear that a person is not a citizen simply by the location of their birth. The intent allegedly being that children born to foreign citizens would fall under the [[jurisdiction]] of their parent's respective governments, unless their parents are entirely under the jurisdiction of the United States[http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/6042.htm].

Some argue that since almost no alien is ever completely outside the [[jurisdiction]] of their home country, almost no alien would ever be entirely under the jurisdiction of the United States. Senator [[Jacob Howard]], the author of the clause, postulated that ''"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States"''. While the US Supreme Court may consider the original intent of the authors, it is not bound by it.

As a matter of historic legal precedent, an alien entering any foreign country subjects himself to the jurisdiction of that country, unless exempted by war or treaty. In application, a modern sovereign state has jurisdiction over all foreigners within its territory except foreign heads of state, diplomats and other high-level government figures. This is reflected in US immigration law in that the child of a foreign ambassador born inside the United States is not a US citizen at birth. (The same situation for a foreign soldier on exchange would yield a US citizen baby). Because he is outside the jurisdicion of the United States, the ambassador is are also immune from other US laws (like drunk driving).

===Elk v. Wilkins===
The [[United States Supreme Court]] first ruled on the meaning of this phrase in ''[[Elk v. Wilkins]]'', {{ussc|112|94|1884}}. The Court determined that children born domestically to [[American Indian]]s, were actually under the jurisdiction of the tribe, which itself had no allegiance to the United States, and was therefore not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

===United States v. Wong Kim Ark===
In ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'', {{ussc|169|649|1898}}, the Supreme Court extended (re-affirmed) U.S. [[jurisdiction]] to include all aliens lawfully residing within the United States, who were not explicitly protected from its jurisdiction by treaty. This includes most temporary residents, soldiers and immigrants, but not diplomats and agents of foreign governments. The subject of ''Wong Kim Ark'' was a child of chinese citizens who were permanent residents. Wong Kim Ark also resided in the US, never renounced his citizenship, and never moved his residency outside of the United States.

There have been several subsequent cases involving the citizenship status of people born to aliens legally within the United States, but the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled whether-or-not the Fourteenth Amendment grants children of illegal immigrants automatic citizenship. The actual "application" of Wong Kim Ark to the domestically born children of illegal aliens originates from the use of birth certificates as proof of citizenship.

In the case of aliens inside the United States on visas, a High Court ruling is probably unnecessary. Most visas are established by treaty, and by treaty, the jurisdiction of the United States might not be absolute, however; these treaties usually define the citizenship status of children born abroad. The Supreme Court briefly approached this issue during ''[[Hamdi v. Rumsfeld]]''[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-6696]. Hamdi, who was born in the U.S. to Saudis on a temporary visa, was referred to as a "presumed American citizen" by justices [[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]] and [[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]]. The immigration aspects of the case were pursued no further than this title; however, it may be persumed that these two Supreme Court justices questioned the definition of jurisdiction, as it has been interpreted from ''Wong Kim Ark''.

Traditionally, by amicably entering the country, with the intent of respecting its laws and people, foreigners submit themselves to U.S. jurisdiction. People opposed to the practice of anchor babies, such as Representative [[Tom Tancredo]], have proposed that illegal immigrants do not subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States[http://tancredo.house.gov/irc/welcome.htm]. The very act of entering the country without permission is in defiance of its laws, as is their continued presence inside its borders, and the activities associated with that continued presence. In this argument, illegal immigrants are functionally more like the [[Native Americans]] in ''Elk v. Wilkins'', than the immigrants in ''Wong Kim Ark'', and should be considered as still being under the jurisdiction of their home country. In ''[[Plyler v. Doe]]'', {{ussc|457|202|1982}} the Supreme Court ruled that illegal immigrants inside a State's borders were within its jurisdiction, however; this ruling is in relation to the State's duties to provide an education to the children of those aliens. The above reasoning has only been proposed as a defense to a possible constitutional challenge to new legislation and has been unheard by the Supreme Court.

===Congressional actions===
The citizenship of all persons born within the [[United States]] may still be decided by an [[Act of Congress]], as was done for [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] in the [[Indian Citizenship Act of 1924]]. The [[Citizenship Reform Act of 2005]] (currently proposed as H.R. 698) would amend the [[Immigration and Nationality Act]] to clarify that the domestically born children of foreign nationals are not granted automatic citizenship. This [[Bill (proposed law)|Bill]], if passed, will probably be challenged to the Supreme Court. Whether-or-not it stands will depend on how the Supreme Court views the jurisdiction of the United States over illegal aliens. Some legislators have proposed that the citizenship clause be changed through a [[constitutional amendment]]; however, no amendment has yet been presented to the States for ratification.

==References==
1. [[Congressman]] [[Mark Souder]] (R. IN)
Congressional Update regarding anchor babies. An anchor baby is a pejorative term used to describe a child born in the U.S. to a non- citizen ... [[http://souder.house.gov/Multimedia/Default.aspx?MediaTypeID=66 see Anchor Babies dated 07/17/2006]]

==See also==
*[[Illegal immigration]]
*[[Illegal immigration in the United States]]
*[[United States nationality law]]
*[[United States Constitution]]
*[[Birth tourism]]

[[Category:History of immigration to the United States]]
[[Category:Pejorative terms for people]]

[[fi:Ankkurilapsi]]

Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-09T00:33:30Z

71.74.209.82: /* Other Economic Studies */not about the economics

{{mergeto|United States immigration debate}}

'''Illegal immigration to the United States''' refers to the migration of people across the [[border|national borders]] of the [[United States]] that is in violation of U.S. [[Immigration law|immigration]] and [[United States nationality law|nationality law]]. The terms ''illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented alien, undocumented immigrant'', and ''undocumented worker'', are common terms used to refer to persons residing in the United States without either U.S. [[citizenship]] or a valid immigration status. <ref>The [[Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS) defines unauthorized immigrants as “foreign-born persons who entered without inspection or who violated the terms of a temporary admission and who have not acquired Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status or gained temporary protection against removal by applying for an immigration benefit. For example, the following foreign-born persons are not considered to be unauthorized residents in these estimates: refugees, asylees, and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and aliens who are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings. [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf]</ref>.
In the United States the term ‘’undocumented alien’’ typically refers to a foreign national who entered the country without valid travel documents or that overstayed the limited period of time granted upon entry. For example, a tourist who enters with a valid [B1 visa] and is granted a stay of 15 days and remains in-country for 30 days is an ‘’undocumented alien’’. The holder of a valid B1 (tourist) visa is barred from accepting employment. By accepting employment this hypothetical tourist becomes an ‘’undocumented worker’’ (whether he is an ‘’undocumented alien’’ or not). Not all ‘’undocumented aliens’’ are ‘’undocumented workers’’. For example, the visas overstay tourist who doesn’t work or the illegal crossing stay-at-home wife.
{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrants Info||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Education Profile||Number||Percent||
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Less then 12 yr.||align="right"|6,700,000||67.0%||
|-
!align="right"|High School||align="right"|3,000,000||30.0%||
|-
!align="right"|College Graduate||align="right"|300,000||3.0%||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Total Illegal Pop.||align="right"|12,000,000 ||Jan 2006||
|-
!align="right"|Total Working||align="right"|7,500,000
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Caught|| align="right"|202,842||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Deported|| align="right"|88,895||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Caught and Released|| align="right"|1,010,000+||2005||
|-
!align="right"|Illegal Immigrants/year|| align="right"|1,500,000+||Total||
|-
!align="right"|Voluntary returns/year||align="right"| - 200,000+||2005
|-
!align="right"|Change of Status/year||align="right"| - 600,000+||2005
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Net Increase/year||align="right"| 700,000+||Illegal Immigrants||
|-
|colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] A Description of the Immigrant Population [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2] 
|}

==Methods used to enter the U.S. illegally==
===Overview===
According to the 1997 report issued by the Binational Study on Migration and commissioned by the U.S. and Mexican governments,
* One-third or 2.3 to 2.4 million of the Mexican-born US residents are unauthorized, despite the legalization of two million unauthorized Mexicans in 1987-88, and subsequent legal immigration that unified their families.
*The total number of people from all countries who entered illegally or overstayed their visas in 1996 was estimated by the INS to be 275,000
*US sources suggest that the number of Mexican-born persons increased by two million between 1990 and 1996, and the binational study estimated that legal immigrants were the smallest part of the increase, 510,000, followed by unauthorized, 630,000, and then 760,000 SAWs and their family members. <ref>Migration News Vol. 13 No. 3, December 2006 [http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=1329_0_5_0 Migration News website] Retrieved Aug 2006</ref>

Three years later, in 2000, [[United States presidential election, 2000|US Presidential]] candidate [[Patrick Buchanan]] ([[Reform Party of the United States of America|Reform Party]]) asserted during an interview on [[National Public Radio]] that half a million people a year (a little less than double the figure the Binational Study stated)
are entering the USA illegally.<ref>Patrick Buchanan, National Public Radio interview, "Talk of the Nation", May 30, 2000). "Our levels of immigration now in the last 30 years have been enormous. It’s almost over a million legal immigrants a year, and half a million illegals who come here and stay." </ref>

According to the [[Pew Hispanic Center]] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. By 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. <ref>Rise, Peak and Decline: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004, Pew Hispanic Center [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53 Available online]</ref>

Another report of the Pew Hispanic center, cites that 45% of unauthorized migrants, had initially visas for limited amounts of time, bur over-stayed their visas, and that a small percentage of these entered the country from Mexico by means of a [[Border Crossing Card]]. <ref>Pew Hispanic Center, ''Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population '' (May 2006) [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]"As much as 45% of the total unauthorized migrant population entered the country with visas that allowed them to reside in the U.S. for a limited amount of time. Known as "overstayers", these migrants became part of the unauthorized population when they remained in the country after their visas had expired. Another small share of the unauthorized migrant population entered the country legally from Mexico using a Border Crossing Card, a document that allows short visits limited to the border region, and then violated the terms of admission. The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."</ref>

====Illegal border crossing====
{{sectNPOV}}
That same article goes on to state, "The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."
[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]
meaning that they crossed a border without passing possible criminal or health inspection or having a valid passport and [[Visa (document)|visa]] inspected by an immigration officer at a Port of Entry (POE). It is estimated that over a million people cross the border illegally each year, most of whom are of Mexican origin{fact}. The rest are labeled "Other Than Mexicans" (OTM), of whom a majority are [[Central America]]ns{fact}.

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a [[misdemeanor]] for the first offense and a [[felony]] for subsequent violations{{fact}}. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the future{{fact}}. Immigrants who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. [[H.R. 4437]] would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

According to a report by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary on 1997, "Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling."<ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM ORDER SECURITY AND DETERRING ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary</ref>
Another large scale multi-million dollar criminal operations connected to illegal immigration is identity theft. [http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html]
The higher crime rates associated with all this traffic has led to extensive efforts on the part of individual sheriffs and communities trying to prevent further damage to their property and communities. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html], [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html], [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss], [[http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]

In 2006 the number of apprehensions on the border is almost the same as last year through 16 July 2006 at 936,000 [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20060722-9999-1n22crossers.html ]. However, according to many US Border Patrol agents, they were instructed by their leadership to "keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited" as one US Border Patrol agent put it [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm].
Some of the traffic has spread away from the dangerous Tucson districts deserts where over a hundred illegal immigrants have died so far this year compared to 153 in 2005. [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060722/images/border.pdf]

[[Image:ElPaso-Juarez-EO.JPG|thumb|right|200px|El Paso (top) and Ciudad Juárez (bottom) seen from earth orbit; the Rio Grande is the thin line separating the two cities through the middle of the photograph.]]
[[Image:TJ Border Beach.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Beach at Border Field State Park near [[San Ysidro, California]]. (Tire tracks from Border Patrol jeeps are visible on the beach.)]]

Border Patrol activity is concentrated around big border cities such as [[San Diego, California|San Diego]] and [[El Paso, Texas|El Paso]] which already have [[separation barriers]] and extensive Border Agent coverage. Each state in the United States has a [[United States National Guard|National Guard]] organization that could, in principal, be placed on the border at a state governor's discretion to assist with border security; many states also have a backup to the National Gurard called the [[State Defense Force]] that could, in an emergency, also be activated for this purpose. Arizona and New Mexico have currently declared the counties that border [[Mexico]] to be under serious duress caused by uncontrolled illegal immigrant traffic, thereby enabling governors to deploy National Guardsmen to the international border. Arizona has exercised this option but New Mexico has not.

In an article published by Renew America, a website which defines itself as a "Alan Keyes' website for grassroots activism -- designed to foster a nationwide movement to restore America to its founding ideals", former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard asserts that "The whole U.S.-Mexico border could be sealed with as few as 100 helicopters equipped with FLIR (forward looking infrared) scopes, and a few hundred men equipped with state of the art sensors, scopes and other electronics..." [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]

See also [[United States–Mexico border]], [[United States-Canada border]].

=====From countries with no visa agreements=====
Immigrants from nations that do not have automatic visa agreements, or who would not otherwise qualify for a visa, sometimes cross the borders illegally. Individuals from [[North Korea]], [[Libya]], [[Cuba]], [[Syria]], [[Sudan]], and [[Iran]] are required to submit to strict questioning from U.S. officials before their applications are processed. Their applications take longer to process than those for visitors and immigrants from other countries. [http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1300.html]

Often, these individuals enter from a land border using falsified documentation from a third country. For instance, [[Ahmed Ressam]], a member of [[Al Qaeda]], originally from [[Algeria]], entered [[Canada]] with a falsified [[France|French]] passport. Once in Canada, he procured a false Canadian passport to enter the United States. In the case of Cuba, the U.S. offers political asylum to many Cubans, but they first must reach U.S. soil. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//shows/trail/etc/fake.html]

====Visa or Border Crossing Card overstayers====

A visa overstayer is someone who has entered the United States legally and then illegally overstayed his or her visa or violated the restrictions on Border Crossing Card (BCC) or laser visa. Fraudulent and forged visa and BCC passes are included in this category. An estimated average 40-60% of all illegal immigrants to the U.S. entered this way. The number of overstayers varies considerably from country to country depending on the location of the country, the cultural, political, social and economic conditions in a given country in a given time. The PEW Hispanic institute reported [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf] that the INS had developed statistics that showed 3.2% of all Central and South America visas are overstayed. A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study gives estimates for all countries showing that China, India, Korea, and the Philippines had violation rates as high as 8%.[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] In general the poorer the country they came from the more likely the foreign visitor was to violate their visa.

GAO estimated that 40-60% of all Mexican illegal immigrants got here by violating their border crossing document's conditions. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] In operation Tarmac where ICE and DHS checked airport employees for legal employment they found 27% of the over 4900 violators found were visa or BCC violators. In one of the rare ICE check ups on a grocery chain they found that over 57% of the several hundred violators were visa overstayers or BCC violators ([http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf| Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered Defense]) patrol officials believe Visa violator numbers would increase if it became more difficult to illegally sneak across the border as illegal border crossers switched techniques. About 33% of all Central American illegal immigrants came by overstaying their visa with the rest traveling through Mexico to reach the border and then crossing illegally. At lest 95+% of all illegal South American, European, and Asians got here by overstaying their visa. (The other ~5% represent illegal immigrants smuggled by ship or plane) An increasing number of illegal immigrants are now flying to Mexico or Canada and then crossing the border illegally by foot or car. The ICE agents on the border report a 52% increase in border violators caught that are Other Than Mexican (OTM). The two main sources of illegal visa violators are Mexico and Canada which the U.S. has a large amount of cross border traffic with. Other estimates done by the GAO show that the overstayers and BCC violators from Mexico alone in the year 2001 may exceed 2,000,000 /year. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/border_crossing_entry_data/us_mexico/index.html] reported that in 2003 (the last year of available statistics) there were 79,000,000 and 245,000,000 border crossings between Canada and Mexico respectively and the US. The tourist bureau shows that there were less Mexicans (as reported by their government) doing all this traffic than their were Canadians (as reported by their government).[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] Mexico has roughly three times the population of Canada. The latest ICE statistics show that they captured 30,000 Brazilians after they crossed the U.S. Mexican border illegally for the first time in 2004. Two of the terrorists behind the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] were visa overstayers. The federal government historically has not extensibly checked up on visa holders once they are in the country; but visa checks has been used extensively after 9 September 2001 to check up on illegal immigrants from countries with large populations sympathic to terrorists. Several hundred visa violators were deported and several thousand more left voluntarily rather than face deportation hearings. {{fact}}

To help improve the lack of good information on visa overstayers the new US-VISIT program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States as well as requiring electronic readable passports containing this information. Information collected is checked against lookout databases to ensure that known or suspected terrorists, criminals, and previous U.S. immigration law violators are not admitted. [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-11_Feb05.pdf] and then checked against their eventual departure. US-VISIT entry procedures have been operational in the secondary inspection areas of the 50 busiest land border ports of entry since December 29, 2004, and are also in place at 115 airports and 15 seaports.[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4858] Early in 2007 the DHS is hoping to replace the laser visa or boundary crossing cards with People Access Security Service (PASS) card, as a secure identity document for people traveling to or from Canada or Mexico. [http://www.thebta.org/syndicate/news/archives/cat_us-visit.html] These would include Radio Frequency Identification Data (RFID) for ease of transit and security.

Visa overstayers violators tend to be somewhat more educated and be better off financially than those who walked crossed the border illegally. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0205/p01s03-usju.html] The financial and education status of the thousands of BCC or laser visa violators is unknown; but is probably very similar to the illegal border crossers who walked across since they both come from the same population base.

One common means of visa overstaying is coming to the U.S. on a student visa and not going to school or not leaving the country after finishing school. [http://ktla.trb.com/la-me-visa22may22,0,2677069.story?coll=ktla-home-3] The number of foreign students in the United States is over 600,000.

==Profile summaries of illegal immigrants==
<center>
{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"
!align=“center”! colspan=8 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Profile Summaries of Illegal Immigrants January 2006
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
||Job Category||% of Illegal Immigrant||% of Native -1 w/8+ yr sch.||% of Average Native||# Illegal Immigrant||# Native 8+ yr sch.||# Average Native
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Managerial / Self Employed||1.50%||5.9%||32.2%||108,000||758,000||33,810,000
|-
!align=“right”|Retail / Business||4.90%||15.2%||29.2%||352,800||1,952,700||30,660,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Private||1.20%||1.0%||0.3%||86,400||128,500||315,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farm Mgr||1.60%||1.6%||1.1%||115,200||205,600||1,155,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Retail||18.20%||20.3%||10.3%||1,310,400||2,607,900||10,815,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farming -2||17.50%||2.9%||1.0%||1,260,000||372,600||1,050,000
|-
!align=“right”|Production||22.0%||20.1%||11.9%||1,584,000||2,582,200||12,495,000
|-
!align=“right”|Construction||33.0%||33.1%||14.0%||2,376,000||4,252,400||14,700,000
|-
|||||||||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Total # Working||7,500,000||12,847,000||108,000,000||||||
|-
!align="right"|Labor rate of Participation -3||82%||46.3%||66.30%||||||
|-
!align="right"|Unemployment Rate||7.0%||7.0%||4.10%||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Country Profile||||||Sex / age Profile||||||Worker profile||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Mexican|| 6,840,000 ||57%||men 18-39||5,300,000||43.7%||align="right"|4,500,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Latin & Central Amer.|| align="right"|3,000,000 ||25%||women 18-39||align="right"|3,500,000 ||29.1%|| align="right"|2,000,000 ||60%
|-
!align="right"|Asia|| 1,080,000 ||9%||more than 40|| 1,300,000 ||10.7%||align="right"|1,000,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Europe + Canada|| 720,000 ||6%||less than 18||align="right"|2,040,000 ||17.0%||align="right"|200,000 ||10%
|-
!align="right"|Rest of World|| 480,000 ||4%||Born / yr.||align="right"|300,000||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Totals Jan 2006||12,100,000 ||||Total Pop.||12,400,000||Total Working||7,500,000
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / year||align="right"|700,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||See Note 7
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / Month||align="right"|60,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||
|-
|}
</center>

# Native Population that most closely matches Illegal immigrant population is workers that never graduated from high school.
# Farm work is the only job category that illegal immigrants uniquely fill; but it does have a 30,000 H2-A visa program for it!
# Rate of Participation is fraction of total population seeking work
# Average Education of illegal immigrants may be less if the ~30% Central American's are included.
# How many criminals turn around after deportation and return is unknown; but it is significant that ICE catchs more than they deport.
# Estimated number may be low by several hundred thousand
# Other estimates of net increase are over 850,000 illegal immigrants / year.

Information Sources:

*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population
*[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2]A Description of the Immigrant Population
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm] Labor Participation less than High School
* [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1204.html] Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't
*[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/AnnualReportEnforcement2004.pdf] Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2004
*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/16.pdf] The Labor Force Status of Short-Term Unauthorized Workers
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf] Labor Statistics

==Illegal immigration economics – NSF study==
The economics of illegal immigration are a highly contentious issue with much conflicting information presented. In 1990 the Congress appointed a bipartisan [[Commission on Immigration Reform]] to review the nation's policies and laws and to recommend changes. Information about the commission and its reports are available at http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/. In turn, the commission in 1995 asked the National Research Council of the National Science Foundation to convene a panel of experts to assess the demographic, economic, and fiscal consequences of immigration. The panel was asked to lay a scientific

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Education, Income and Taxes||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||Asia||Latin America||Other||U.S. / CA
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align =“right”|Years of Education *||14.2||14.7||9.2||12+||14.4
|-
!align =“right”|Household Income *||$42k||$57k||$32k||$42k||42k
|-
!align =“right”|Effective Federal tax rate **||18.7%||22%||5%||18.7%||18.7%
|-
!align =“right”|Effective State tax rate ***||10%||12%||9%||10%||10.9%
|-
!align =“right”|Average Federal taxes ||$7.9k||$12.5k||$1.6k||$7.9k||$7.9k
|-
!align =“right”|Average State taxes||$4.2k||$6.8k||$2.9||$4.2k||$4.5k
|-
|colspan=6|<hr>

|-
|colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' * Census data [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/effect2004/effect2004.html] **Average federal tax data from CBO estimates of effective Federal tax rates [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] ***State taxes are from California Statistical Abstract [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/STAT-ABS/toc.htm] Note: Most of the Federal and state taxes are paid by households earning significantly more than average.

|}

foundation for policymaking on some specific Immigration issues. [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/1.html]
The panel consisted of over 15 well respected professors from highly ranked universities [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The National Science Foundation panels charge was to address three key questions:
# What is the effect of immigration on the future size and composition of the U.S. population?
# What is the influence of immigration on the overall economy?
# What is the fiscal impact of immigration on federal, state, and local governments?
The report by 15+ researchers was issued after 3 years study was called “The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration” (1997) Edited by James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, ISBN 0-309-06356-6. The book is available on line at [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The enclosed table summarizes some of the National Academy of Sciences main conclusions.

Previous studies (and many subsequent} of the fiscal impacts of immigration were found to have serious deficiencies. Indeed in 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available. Many of these represented not science but advocacy from both sides of the immigration debate. These studies often offered an incomplete accounting of either the full list of taxpayer costs and benefits by ignoring some programs and taxes while including others. More important, the conceptual foundation of this research was rarely explicitly stated, offering opportunities to tilt the research toward the desired result. [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/2.html]

'''"As long as there is a virtually unlimited supply of potential immigrants, the nation must make choices on how many to admit and who they should be."''' National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1997.

{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| National Science Foundation Immigrant Economics Federal State Local Net Annual Fiscal Impact per Household [1997]||
|-
| colspan=12|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||%||Asia||%||Latin America||%||Other||%||All||% ||Total Cost *
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>
|--
!align =“right”|California||$1,631||26%||$1,081||25%|| ($7,206)||43%||$3,313||6%||($2.206)||100%|| ($20.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449||26%||$2,022||25%|| ($5,625)||43%||$3,052||6%|| ($1,613)||100%|| ($15.0) billion 
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrant Economics **
|-
!align =“right”|California||$1,631 ||6%||$1,081 ||9%|| ($7,206)||81%||$3,313 ||4%|| ($5,509)||100%|| ($22.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449 ||6%||$2,022 ||9%|| ($5,625)||81%||$3,052 ||4%|| ($4,225)||100%|| ($17.0) billion 
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>

|-
|colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' ''The New Americans'', National Science Foundation Table 6.4, pg 284[http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/284.html] * Total costs calculated for all U.S. immigrants, legal and illegal, 9.166 million households 1995 ** No adjustments for changes since 1995, assumes 4 million illegal households, percent distribution from Pew 
|}

Backing up the National Science foundation, another study put the cost to the federal government at $2,700/household [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html] On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal government are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Still another study put the net costs to California residents at $433/household for European/Canadian immigrants, $1,240/household for Asian immigrants and $8,182/household for Latin American workers [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/161.html TABLE 4-7a Net Fiscal Impacts by Nativity of Householder] pg 160-1. These are the costs calculated for all immigrants legal and illegal. The costs for illegal immigrants are significantly higher since they have even less education, earn even less income and often avoid paying even the small taxes they are elgible for.

Madeleine Cosman contends that the requirement of hospitals to offer service to illegal aliens regardless of the alien's ability to pay has led to many hospitals running a deficit and being forced to close.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf] Also, free public education is extended to all children in the U.S. regardless of their citizen status. The matricula consular and passports are usually considered legal identification by many police agencies and governments.

Nearly all modern developed societies like Sweden, Canada and the United States heavily subsidize the cost of all government services for low income people by heavily taxing the higher income people. In the United states the effective federal tax rate considering all federal taxes as calculated by the Congressional Budget office runs from 4.8% for the bottom quintile [0-20%](avg. income = $34k) to 25% for the last quintile [80-100%] of income households. The bottom two income quintiles, with exemptions, are nearly exempt from all income tax and social security taxes are heavily subsidized. Many illegal workers claim they have income tax witheld not bothering to mention it is nearly always negligibly small.[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] The state's tax systems vary more but nearly always tax the higher income people much more than the lower income people.

==Other Economic Studies==
In an article that appeared in the ''World Policy Journal'' (1994), Peter Andreas asserts that constraining the flow of illegal immigration in states such as California, may result in economic stagnation. <ref>Andreas, Peter, ''The Making of Amerexico (Mis)Handling Illegal Immigration,'' World Policy Journal Vol. 11.2 (1994): pp.55. "The sad irony is that the most important constraint on the flow of illegal immigrants may be continued economic stagnation in states such as California. In periods of recession, labor markets tighten, reducing em- ployment opportunities--both legal and illegal. Economic recovery, on the other hand--propelled in no small part by the hard work of illegal laborers already here-- would expand opportunities in the labor market, encouraging continued illegal immigration."</ref>

A study by the Rand Corporation, conducted by Kevin McCarthy and Georges Vernez, came to the conclusion that immigrants do not have a negative effect on the earnings and the employment opportunities of native-born Americans. <ref>McCarthy, Kevin F., Vernez, Georges, ''Immigration in a Changing Economy'', Rand Corporation (1997), ISBN 0-8330-2496-5</ref> Their book was sponsored by the [[Department of Defense]] and several foundations, <ref>Martin, Philip, ''Immigration in a Changing Economy: California's Experience,'' Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 25.1 (1999): pp.159</ref>

A study by Francine Lipman states that the belief that undocumented migrants are exploting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy, is "undeniable false". Lipman asserts that illegal immigrants provide a net positive benefit to federal coffers, because of the tax law's treatment of those in the country illegally and those who are married to illegal immigrants: they are ineligible for the [[Earned Income Credit]] and the Child Tax Credit, and that 85% of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive impact on the U.S. economy <ref>J. Lipman, Fnacine, J.''Taxing Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation'' [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584 Available online]" Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States' economy. The widespread belief is that illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is undeniably false. [E]very empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates the opposite . . .: undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services. Moreover, undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs. Eighty-five percent of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive (seventy-four percent) or neutral (eleven percent) impact on the U.S. economy."</ref>

The CIS claims that many illegal immigrants use the U.S. welfare program with false identification. [http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back503.html]

==2004 illegal immigration debate==
{{main|United States immigration debate}}
In 2004, [[United States]] [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] proposed a [[guest worker]] program to absorb migrant laborers who would otherwise come to the U.S. as [[illegal alien]]s. However, the details were left to legislators. In 2005, the [[United States Congress|Congress]] began creating legislation to change the current [[illegal immigration]] policies. The legislation approved by the U.S. [[House of Representatives]] led to massive protests.

See also [[2006 United States immigration reform protests]].

==Legal issues==

===Legal and political status===

===Citizenship and the children of immigrants===
Before passage of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], in 1865 after the conclusion of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], the United States commonly granted citizenship on the basis of [[jus soli]]. The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to protect newly emancipated [[freedmen|former slaves]], and in keeping with the jus soli tradition of the Republic has been interpreted by the [[United States Supreme Court]], in precedent set by ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'' in 1898, to cover everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents, with the exception of the children of diplomats. The decision in ''Wong Kim Ark'' upheld the ''jus soli'' which had often been practiced before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In short, the Court found that the 14th Amendment re-affirmed ''jus soli''. ''Wong Kim Ark'' did not overturn or weaken ''Elk v. Wilkins''; it simply defined ''jus soli''. The Court found that Wong Kim Ark, having been born to Chinese citizens, who were lawfully residing within the United States, and with the intention of amicably obeying its laws, was a citizen of the United States. Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are explicitly not citizens:
* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Children born to [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the [[Indian Citizenship Act of 1924]])
The following persons born in the United States are explicitly citizens:
* Children born to US citizens
* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people, and obeying its laws.

Under these rulings, the citizenship status of the U.S.-born children of [[illegal immigrant]]s is in the same gray area as people born in foreign countries of foreign parents - that is, neither ruling explicitly denies or grants them citizenship. Various aspects of both ''Elk v. Wilkins'' and ''Wong Kim Ark'' lend reasoning that such children are not US citizens. ''Wong Kim Ark'' is often cited as granting the children of illegal aliens US citizenship, but the ruling is explicit in that it applies to the children of aliens who are legally within the United States. Some may even argue that it implicitly denies them citizenship by doing so. However, in terms of Supreme Court rulings, or the rulings of any court, implicit is meaningless. The ''status quo'' is that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens, and it will remain that way until government policy changes or is challenged, and the Supreme Court inevitably makes an explicit ruling.

Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a [[constitutional amendment]]. The proposed changes are usually one of the following:
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or [[permanent resident]] (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States (requires an Act of Congress, probably challenged to the Supreme Court).

Representative [[Nathan Deal]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] of [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], introduced legislation in [[2005]] to assert that U.S.-born children are only "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (and therefore eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment) if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Similarly, Representative [[Ron Paul]] of [[Texas]] has introduced a constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Neither of these measures has come to a vote. Even if Rep. Deal's legislation were passed by Congress, it would likely be struck down by the courts based on the precedent established in ''U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark'', which allows for the US born children of lawful visitors to be citizens as well. The issue remains controversial, reflecting both tensions about immigration and disputes about the appropriate balance of power between the courts and the Congress.

Children of families where at least one parent is an illegal immigrant are sometimes referred to as ''[[Anchor baby|anchor babies]]'' because once the illegal family's mother gives birth to the baby inside the U.S., the baby is said to "anchor" them to the U.S.. Legally the illegal parent or parents can still be deported so the anchor is more perceived than real. However, some illegal immigrant advocates and some of the children with parents of mixed legal immigration status feel the term "Anchor Baby" is [[pejorative]].

===Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986===
The [[Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]] (IRCA) made the hiring of an individual without documents an offense for the first time. Enforcement has been lax, but major businesses have often been found to use illegal immigrants. The act is somewhat redundant since the forging of government documents (fake immigration documents or providing falsified social security numbers) is already a felony, and for most companies such documents must be provided to the government in its tax filings. However, the government does not notify those whose identities have been stolen for the falsified social security numbers, thus making it difficult to estimate the extent of the problem. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/]

===Legal cases===
Some major companies have been accused of hiring undocumented workers.

* [[Tyson Foods]] was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its [[chicken]] packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee acquitted the company after evidence was presented that [[Tyson Foods]] went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.
* [[Wal-Mart]] was convicted of using illegal sub contracted [[janitor|janitorial]] workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge or permission.
* [[Philippe Kahn]], who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company [[Borland International]] without ever getting [[United States Permanent Resident Card|proper legal status]].

===Use of military to defend border===
See [[United States immigration debate]]

===Immigration with and without quotas===
The immigration quota system was first expanded with the [[Emergency Quota Act]] of 1921 which was used to reduce the influx of East and Southern European immigrants who were coming to the country in large numbers from the turn of the century. This immigration was further reduced by the [[Immigration Act of 1924]] which was structured to maintain the cultural and ethnic traditions of the United States.

There has never been a quota for Jews or any other religious group, only for people from specific countries. The waiting list for the few available immigration spots grew enormously in the 1930s in the U.S. and throughout the free world that was accepting any immigration. In the 1930's the number of Jewish immigrant applicants seeking visa to the U.S. alone exceeded the quota for all of Germany. [[Adolf Hitler]] started his [[Holocast]] program in the 1930's that ultimately led to the death of over 10,000,000 people including 6,000,000 Jews. The [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] administration had nearly shut down immigration during the decade of the [[Great Depression of 1929]]. In 1929 there were 279,678 immigrants recorded and in 1933 there were only 23,068 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. By 1939 recorded immigrants had crept back up to 82,998 but then the advent of World War II drove it back down to 23,725 in 1943 increasing slowly to 38,119 by 1945 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. After 1946 about 600,000 of Europe's Displaced Person (DP's) refugees were admitted under special laws outside the country quotas, and in the 1960s and 1970s large numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/] were admitted under special laws outside all quotas. Congress passed the [[Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965]] which esssentially removed all nation-specific quotas, while retaining an overall quota, and included immigrants from Mexico and the Western Hemisphere for the first time with their own quotas. It also put a large part of immigration, so-called family reunification, outside the quota system. This dramatically changed the number, type and composition of the new arrivals from mostly European, to predominantly poor [[Latino]] and [[Asian]]. It also dramatically increased the number of illegal immigrants as many poorer people now had family or friends in the U.S. that attracted them there. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] In 1986, the [[Immigration Reform and Control Act]] (IRCA) was passed, creating amnesty for about 3,000,000 illegal immigrants already in the United States. Critics believe IRCA just intensified the illegal immigration flow as those granted amnesty illegally brought more of their friends and family into the U.S.. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

Without quotas on large segments of the immigration flow, legal immigration to the U.S. surged and soon became largely family based "Chain immigration" where familys brought in a never ending chain of off quota new immigrant family members. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States are now at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000. Net Illegal immigration has also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970's, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980's to over 500,000 per year in the 1990's to over 700,000 per year in the 2000's. Total illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf], [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html])

See also: [[Immigration to the United States]]

===Other===
There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics.
* During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents.
* [[Linda Chavez]], [[Zoe Baird]] and [[Tom Tancredo]] are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "[[Nannygate]]". In Tancredo's case, a home contractor allegedly hired illegal aliens.

==Historical context==
Every wave of immigration into the United States has faced fear and hostility, especially during times of economic hardship, political turmoil, or war: in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, one of our nation's first immigration laws, to keep out all people of Chinese origin; during the "Red Scare" of the 1920s, thousands of foreign-born people suspected of political radicalism were arrested and brutalized; many were deported without a hearing; and in 1942, 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned in camps until the end of World War II.
===Chinese experience===
In 1882 the [[Chinese Exclusion Act (United States)|Chinese Exclusion Act]] had cut off nearly all [[China|Chinese]] immigration. The first laws creating a [[quota]] for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers. Ngai (2003) shows that the new laws were the beginning of mass illegal immigration, because they created a new class of persons - illegal aliens - whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility. This contradiction challenged received notions of sovereignty and democracy in several ways. First, the increase in the number of illegal entries created a new emphasis on control of the nation's borders - especially the long Canadian border. Second, the application of the deportation laws gave rise to an oppositional political and legal discourse, which imagined "deserving" and "undeserving" illegal immigrants and, therefore, just and unjust deportations. These categories were constructed out of modern ideas about crime, sexual morality, the family, and race. In the 1930s federal deportation policy became the object of legal reform to allow for administrative discretion in deportation cases. Just as restriction and deportation "made" illegal aliens, administrative discretion "unmade" illegal aliens. Administrative law reform became an unlikely site where problems of national belonging and inclusion played out.

===History of border security===
For a period of time in the 1990s U.S. Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal aliens and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR infrared devices, and helicopters. In conjunction with the U.S. Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. Sher Zieve claims this was very effective but temporary as the illegal traffic resumed as soon as the military withdrew.[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]. After the [[September 11, 2001 attack]]s the United States looked at the feasibility of placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure. [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4018573.html]], [http://newsfromtheborder.blogspot.com/2006/07/del-rio-border-influx-drops.html], [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/national-guard-presence-cutting-number.php]

In December, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to build a [[separation barrier]] along parts of the border not already protected by a separation barriers. A later vote in the [[United States Senate]] on [[May 17]], [[2006]], included a plan to blockade 860 miles of the border with vehicle barriers and triple-layer fencing along with granting amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and roughly doubling legal immigration. [[Bay Buchanan]], head of [[Team America]], an [[immigration reduction]] [[political action committee]], estimated that it would take less than six months to build a 2,000 mile, triple-layer fence and would cost roughly $1.5 - 3 billion. On the same show, Buchanan claimed that the 1990s-era border security program [[Operation Gatekeeper]] cut down unauthorized immigration by 90%. The actual numbers are not quite that high with 565,581 apprehensions in San Diego district in fiscal year 1992 before Operation Gatekeeper and its enhanced border fencing and policing to a low of 100,681 apprehensions in in 2002--an 82% reduction. Apprehensions in 2006 are at 138,608 or a 75% reduction. [http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/news/SDUT-4-16-06.pdf]
Apprehensions have gone up in other areas as border security was enhanced in San Diego and El Paso which saw a similar drop in apprehensions.

== References and footnotes ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />
</div>

==Further reading==
* Barkan, Elliott R. "Return of the Nativists? California Public Opinion and Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s." ''Social Science History'' 2003 27(2): 229-283. in Project Muse
* Cull, Nicholas J. and Carrasco, Davíd, ed. ''Alambrista and the US-Mexico Border: Film, Music, and Stories of Undocumented Immigrants'' U. of New Mexico Press, 2004. 225 pp.
* Thomas J. Espenshade; "Unauthorized Immigration to the United States" ''Annual Review of Sociology''. Volume: 21. 1995. pp 195+.
* Flores, William V. "New Citizens, New Rights: Undocumented Immigrants and Latino Cultural Citizenship" ''Latin American Perspectives'' 2003 30(2): 87-100
* Lisa Magaña, ''Straddling the Border: Immigration Policy and the INS'' (2003
* Mohl, Raymond A. "Latinization in the Heart of Dixie: Hispanics in Late-twentieth-century Alabama" ''Alabama Review'' 2002 55(4): 243-274. Issn: 0002-4341
* Ngai, Mae M. ''Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America'' (2004),
* Ngai, Mae M. "The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921-1965" ''Law and History Review'' 2003 21(1): 69-107. Issn: 0738-2480 Fulltext in History Cooperative

== See also ==
* [[Immigration reduction]]
* [[United States immigration debate]]
* [[Free immigration]]
* [[History of US immigration]]
* [[Immigrant deaths along the United States Border]]
* [[Migra]]
* [[Nativism]]
* [[NumbersUSA]]
* [[H-1B visa]]
* [[Mara Salvatrucha]]
* [[Minuteman Project]]
* [[S. 2611]]

==External links==
===News Coverage===
* [[Orange County Register]]: “ 'Visa overstayers' fuel illegal population” - April 5, 2006 [http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1087193.php]
* [[USA Today]]: Text of President Bush's Immigration Law Reform Speech on May 16, 2006 [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-15-bush-speech-text_x.htm?csp=34]
* [[CNN]]: Reaction to Bush immigration speech - May 15, 2006 [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration.reax/index.html]
* [[Miami Herald]]: “No human being is `illegal” – May 24, 2006 [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14652801.htm]
* [[Washington Post]]: “One Sheriff sees immigration answer as simple – May 20, 2006 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]
* [[Associated Press]]: “Ariz. Posse to Arrest Illegal Immigrants” –May 4, 2006 [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html]
* [[NY Times]] “Arizona County Uses New Law to Look for Illegal Immigrants” –May 9, 2006 [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]
* [[City Journal]] “How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy” –no date [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] A publication of [[The Manhattan Institute]]

===Others===
*Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS22026.pdf] a report of the [[Congressional Research Service]] (January 13, 2005) provided by the [[Federation of American Scientists]].

[[Category:Immigration law]]
[[Category:Immigration to the United States]]
[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Legal categories of people]]

[[es:Inmigración ilegal]]

User talk:MER-C/archives/1

2006-08-07T22:43:07Z

71.74.209.82: /* Recent edits to 198.97.67.59 */

== '''Welcome to Wikipedia!''' ==
Dear MER-C:
[[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome]] to [[Wikipedia]], a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

* [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|Five Pillars of Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Community Portal|Community Portal]]
* [[Wikipedia:FAQ|Frequently Asked Questions]]
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
* [[Wikipedia:Revert|How to revert to a previous version of a page]]
* [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]]
* [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Copyrights]]
* [[Wikipedia:Shortcuts|Shortcuts]]

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click [[Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes|here]] to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the '''[[Wikipedia:New contributors' help page|New contributors' help page]]''', where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type '''<code>{{helpme}}</code>''' on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|never biting new users]]. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an [[Wikipedia:Administrator|administrator]]. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to [[Wikipedia:User page|tell us about]] [[User:{{PAGENAME}}|yourself]] and be [[Wikipedia:Bold|'''BOLD''']]! [[User:MichaelZ526|Michael]] 04:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

==Endurance Crater==
Thanks for the cleanup on Endurance with those break=clear all's. They really straightened the article out. Now to add more substance... -- [[User:Riffsyphon1024|Riffsyphon1024]] 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
: I agree, there are way too many pictures for that little article. There's some interesting papers that are freely available over [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/lpsc2006.download.html here] and [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/lpsc2005.download.html here], however I have not read them all yet. -- [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
::There should be some expansion to the parts of the crater where the most science came out, which might warrant the creation of subarticles on the features of the crater if need be. I'm particularly interested in Burns Cliff since they seem to have traced it out as the first real geologic formation on Mars. -- [[User:Riffsyphon1024|Riffsyphon1024]] 06:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Though now that I think about it, theres not much in Endurance to begin with, so we will have to expand on it there to fill it out and place the images better. One way or another. :P -- [[User:Riffsyphon1024|Riffsyphon1024]] 06:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I tried to expand the article a bit, however there isn't much stuff over at the official MER site or at [http://unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showforum=2 one of the better known "back seat driver" forums]. Most of the content is hidden in subscription requiring journals. And I am not a geologist, so I do not understand many of the things said in such papers. -- [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 06:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Since you refer to the JPL's MER site, there is information in their archives that I can look up, but theres alot of stuff. -- [[User:Riffsyphon1024|Riffsyphon1024]] 08:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Unfortunately, none of it is of real scientific interest. Most of it goes something like "we went into the crater...saw an outcrop...drove to it...used the RAT a few times...took some color pictures...used the MI - "Ooh, look at those [[Martian spherules|little round balls!]]"...Mini-TES...APXS...Moessbauer integration...there's another outcrop, blah blah blah. Whereas Edgett's paper on Meridiani Planum and the LPSC papers say much more, more directly, than what we can get from the JPL site. Examples: "Victoria is an exhumed crater", "Endurance is more exhumed than Victoria", "The strata encountered at the MER-B site go down for about another 150m", etc. I feel that I have adequately summarised the JPL information without having to add more pictures. -- [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Well you can't blame a bunch of planetary geologists getting excited about hematite on Mars. ;) -- [[User:Riffsyphon1024|Riffsyphon1024]] 16:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

== |db-unksource ==

Please do not stick {{tl|db-unksource}} where the image is already marked for CSD I4 using another template, as you did with [[:Image:Great Mighty Poo.jpg]]. unksource is redundant in this case, and my experience has been these tags are not usually removed by vandals, so there is no need to beat the 7-day waiting period to get these deleted. Regards, [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 14:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:Fair enough. --[[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 04:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

== Good work ==

Well done on finding all those old images without proper licences. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 09:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:They're at "Category:Uploader_unsure_of_copyright_status" (wikilink doesn't want to work). I'm only half done, so there are plenty to come. Thanks. --[[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

== Stop reverting the Muslims by Nationality ==

That edit is not Vandalism he is removing old data. [[User:Aeon1006|Aeon]] [[User talk:Aeon1006|Insane Ward]] 05:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
: Yes, the 1994 census data is old, however he is removing some more recent stuff with it. I'll let someone else decide. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 05:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
::Simply ask him why he is removing it. That way you don't get into a revert war. I have removed the Test 4 fromhis page. Unwarented. [[User:Aeon1006|Aeon]] [[User talk:Aeon1006|Insane Ward]] 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I placed that template just before you contacted me. I've asked on the IP's talk page. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 05:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

==Your edit to [[Sean Thomas]]==
Your recent edit to [[:Sean Thomas]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Thomas&diff=65504286&oldid=65502513 diff]) was reverted by an '''automated bot''' that attempts to recognize and repair [[Wikipedia:vandalism|vandalism]] to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. '''[[User:AntiVandalBot/FAQ|Click here]]''' for '''frequently asked questions''' about the bot and this warning. // [[User:AntiVandalBot|AntiVandalBot]] 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing on the article [[Sean Thomas]]? It seems to be a valid edit.[[User:GofG | GofG]] ||| [[Special:Contributions/GofG | Contribs]] 06:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
: Only parts of it is valid. Towards the end, it reads too much like a life story and thus isn't NPOV. A sample:

:{{cquote|Lately the last year I have read some awesome books including; The Celestine Prophecy and The Tenth Insight, by James Redfield, Angels and Demons, The Divinci Code, Deception Point, and Digital fortress all by Dan Brown

When you’re with a girl you go out to movies...........a lot! More and more i'm finding inspiration in books and movies as an alternative to bands. I think in the last year or so there has been a great quantity of quality movies both commercial and independent. Some of my faves have been Garden State, as funny as napoleon dynamite, as real as today, I loved napoleon but who didn’t? There was "The Station Agent" and Metalica's "some kind of monster" "Lord of the rings" and the highly anticipated "revenge of the sith" I’m a big fan of all the star wars movies.}}
:[[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 06:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

==Stupid "On Wheels" vandal... seems to get everywhere!!!==

Glad to see you're ontop of this one... [[User:I ate a banana in the freezing rain!]] We had problems with an "On Wheels" vandal on MA (Memory-Alpha) a few months ago. Not sure if its always the same guy, or if its actually a bunch of people, or even a load of copy-cats... whatever, its good to see that they're not having too much of an impact here! [[User:Zsingaya|Zsingaya]] 12:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like it's gone now, after being blocked for the third time. I'll continue to monitor recent changes until I log off to bed in half an hour. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::Willy (See [[WP:WoW|Willy on Wheels]]) is a pain in the butt, glad to see you were on top of it. [[User:Aeon1006|Aeon]] [[User talk:Aeon1006|Insane Ward]] 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for reverting the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gary_Kirk&oldid=65544165 vandalism] to my userpage!
— [[User:Gary Kirk|G]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|a]][[User:Gary Kirk|ry Kirk]] | [[User_talk:Gary Kirk|talk!]] 13:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
: Seems like the communism vandal. LOL. You're welcome. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
== renaming instances of "Thermal Design Power" ==

Please look at the discussions on german Wikipedia. [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Thermal_Design_Power#Thermal_Design_Point] There was a hint on this a long long time on the discussion-page of thermal design point. but nobody did anything. till today. i did something. [[User:134.30.5.94|134.30.5.94]] 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, you did a [[Wikipedia:Cut and paste move|cut and paste move]]. Registered users have a mechanism to move pages while preserving the page history. That's why I reverted it. The admins will come along and sort things out, since your antics made sure I cannot move the page myself. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== Request ==

Please do not cut and paste the [[Pro-life]] article into the [[Anti-choice]] page.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|'''Conrad Devonshire''']] [[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''Talk''']] 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:That wasn't me. It's an IP - [[User:24.115.41.168|24.115.41.168]]. I'm trying to sort it out. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::Oh, I apologise for the mixup.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|'''Conrad Devonshire''']] [[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''Talk''']] 04:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== Reverting Paignton edits ==
Hi, earlier today you reverted (rightly as far as I can see) an edit in the [[Paignton]] page. I've reverted it twice since, however I've not been around enough to know what to do next? I realise it comes from an IP address used by others potentially. Help would be appreciated - cheers
--[[User:NigelR|Nigel]] 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:See [[WP:UTM]] for an appropriate warning to put on the talk page. Once you have had enough, go to the [[WP:AIV|admins]] for a block. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks - more garbage again today - I've reported it (but couldn't revert [[Paignton]] pages as I've reverted it twice already in 24 hours?). Appreciate the advice, have a good life [[User:NigelR|Nigel]] 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Reverting (blatant) vandalism doesn't violate 3RR. I've reverted seven times in ten minutes over at [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] before the admins came and blocked that vandal. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Again thanks, gradually building up the knowledge. I guess I'm irritated by this one for a number of reasons not least of which that I appear to be funding a uk gov department to waste time <g>. A three hour block was placed on the IP as it's shared but I'm sure it will come back. Regards [[User:NigelR|Nigel]] 08:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::If it continues, go over to [[WP:RFP]] and request semi-protection. I hate shared IPs too - they can't be blocked without shutting out legitimate users. AOL is the worst - you get so many vandals (like that sockpuppet further down). I just wish they blocked AOL once and for all (but still let legitimate people log in and create accounts). [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(indents removed) Thanks again MER-C - the more I look the more I agree about shared IPs - why don't people register, it's not difficult! Cheers -- [[User:NigelR|Nigel]] 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

== Your first Barnstar! ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | [[Image:WMBarnstar.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Working Man's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I award you the Working Man's Barnstar for reverting vandalism and tagging pages for cleanup, wikifying or deletion like no one else on Earth. It's the first time I give anyone a barnstar and I'm absolutely sure I'll not regret giving it to such a hard-working editor as you. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 05:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
|}

P.S. I'm also in UTC+8 timezone! Which country are you from, if you don't mind me asking? [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 05:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
: Thanks. I'm from Perth, Western Australia. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 07:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

== Leave my page alone ==

Please stop doing that to my page. You wouldn't want it to happen to you, would you? --[[User:YankeeFan2006|YankeeFan2006]] 08:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:You're a banned sockpuppet as far as I can tell. Why should I listen to you? [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::Why should you listen to those other users that suspect me. Just because I log in through AOL doesn't nessecarily mean I'm some other banned AOL user that's on a mission to vandalized the RfA pages. Yes, I vote from time to time, but all I'm trying to do is write an article about the [[Yankees]] in their quest to make the playoffs. Unfortunately, because I have to connect with AOL, and I can't choose which IP address to login from, I can't hel pit. Now, because I accidentally voted twice in an RfA my page must be bombarded and I be block? Don't really make sense. --[[User:YankeeFan2006|YankeeFan2006]] 08:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes you can. Change ISPs or use a non-AOL browser, e.g. [[Mozilla Firefox|Firefox]]. By the way, your edit history suggests you are a sockpuppet: see [[User talk:Bunchofgrapes#Shenanigans]]. If you aren't a sockpuppet, prove it. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 10:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I would need to be on an independant connection. I'm just her e to contribute to Yankee pages, that's all. I'm not here to mess uo pages, why do you think that way? [[User:Yankeefan2006..|Yankeefan2006..]] 09:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Let's see what the admins have to say. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::I wouldn't be here making useful edits if I was a "sock". [[User:Yankeefan2006..|Yankeefan2006..]] 09:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Such as? See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Yankeefan2006..]. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Why can't you be patient, who do you persit in blanking my page?[[User:Yankeefan2006..|YankeeFan2006]] 10:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(indents removed for readability)
Until you disprove the evidence that strongly suggests you aren't a sockpuppet, I will continue to revert your removal of the sockpuppet templates. Why haven't you done so immediately? [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 11:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

== EDO Corporation ==
Please explain why you have edited EDO Corp page of latest update. {{unsigned|81.98.157.111}}
:Sorry about that, I saw your last edit and mistook it for a section blanking by some vandal IP (which I see very often) and just reverted blindly without checking the history. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! If you'd like to continue to make high-quality contributions, I suggest you recognise your good work under a fixed identity, not just a collection of four changing numbers between 0 and 255. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

... for reverting vandalism to my userpage :-) Cheers --[[User:Srikeit|Srikeit]] ([[User talk:Srikeit|Talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Emailuser/Srikeit|Email]]) 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

==Thanks==
Hi MER-C. Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage by [[User:68.45.174.91|68.45.174.91]]. By the way your warning on their talk page appears not to have parsed correctly. - [[User:Gimboid13|Gimboid13]] 09:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. Thanks for letting me know about the talk page - it was a typo. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed thank you for saving my talkpage too :) —[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|e]][[User:Xyrael|l]] 11:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. Unfortunately, when doing vandal patrol you have to keep an eye on your user pages in case the vandals retaliate. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

== STOP!! ==
Stop reverting my edits. This user spammed many pages claiming that these are my sockpuppets, and I am removing the false claims. Please, just revert your reverts for these are things involving me. I am removing all the spamming that this user did to a bunch of pages after he got mad at me. Revert your edits that you made. Thank you. --[[User:69.227.174.70|69.227.174.70]] 09:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:Removing sock puppet notices, especially as an IP, can be construed as vandalism. I've seen sockpuppets do that before, see the Yankeefan2006.. saga above. Removing sockpuppet templates makes other people think that you are a sockpuppet too. This is not the place if you want the notices removed - go to [[WP:ANI]] or the talk page of a [[Special:Listadmins|sysop]]. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

== [[Alliance for Aging Research]] ==

Thanks for catching that copyvio. I can't believe my spidey sense didn't go off on that one, looking back it was kind of an obvious copy and paste job. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. The heading "who we are" gave it away. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

==[[Damages]]==

You have just reverted a page to its previous wrong and frankly misleading history and undone all my edits, which took a substantial part of yesterday. You left no explanation. What is your role in this organisation? Can you please take another look at it. You will see from the talk page that it is not a finished article, and has further work to do. I assume from your actions you wish me to stop editing this article, and so you think that wikipedia is best of with the previous version? I am a busy professional, who actually knows about this topic, but who can't be bothered to play games undoing all this. --[[User:BramleyBarn|BramleyBarn]] 08:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:You removed a large amount of (misleading) content, which I mistook for vandalism. I agree that your edits were legitimate - sorry about reverting you. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 11:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

:: No probs! I'm new here and I was confused! Please drop back cos I'd welcome feedback. Cheers. --[[User:BramleyBarn|BramleyBarn]] 11:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

:::On further inspection, your last edit appeared to have truncated the article. (Do you use Firefox and the Google toolbar - see [http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5643 here?]) That's why I reverted it - I've installed [[User:MER-C/monobook.js|a script]] that mimicks the rollback function the admins have, which removes consecutive contributions by an editor with one click. It's great against page blank vandals who remove one section, save, remove another section, save and so on and other vandals in general but can cause collateral damage. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Yeah - I'd notice truncating articles happening a lot. (The damages article should be OK again now). Let me investigate this article - Thanks for that. --[[User:BramleyBarn|BramleyBarn]] 12:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::It's fine. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 13:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

== MY SUGAR CAT edit ==

Yes, you edited my [[My Sugar Cat]] page, and even said "Stop shouting". I'd like to let you know that the name of the single was all in capital letters and it was kinda unecessary to edit it, let alone say such things. Unless it's a formatting rule and if it is, then please tell. {{unsigned|Mad Cactuar}}
:The capitalisation on the album cover is optimised for marketing. However, one should use ordinary English conventions when writing about it. I have a book on my desk right now - on the front cover it says "THE JUNGLE IS NEUTRAL BY F. SPENCER CHAPMAN" however when referring to the book I would write "''The Jungle is Neutral'', by F. Spencer Chapman". [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 11:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't merely on the album cover. It's released with that name, even the official website puts it as that name. It's the official name to use caps, it's a Japanese single not an English one. Some Japanese singles use capitals for their name. Anyway, as you please. One question, how do you find suitable categories for the subjects, and once you do get categories how do you remove the banner on the page that says "This article needs to be categorized" and stuff? Plus, how do ya sign names? {{unsigned|Mad Cactuar}}

:To find suitable categories, start looking at something you know that the article fits in, such as [[:Category:Albums]]. Look at the subcategories and gradually select more specific categories. Once you are finished, add <nowiki>[[Category:X]]</nowiki> where X is one of the final categories you selected to the bottom of the article and remove the <nowiki>{{uncat}}</nowiki>. Also, some templates put articles into categories. For example, [[Endurance (crater)]], as the name implies, is a crater. We go to [[:Category:Craters]] and look at the subcategories and notice [[:Category:Craters on Mars]] which has no subcategories. Thus we put that into the article. To sign, type <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
[[User:Mad Cactuar|Mad Cactuar]] 12:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

== Barnstar! ==

{{award2|image=Barnstar_of_Reversion2.png|size=100px|topic=The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|text=A regular, familiar name in the diff trenches of the [[WP:RCP|RC Patrol]] -- you keep beating me to reverts, dammit! :) Very glad to have you around, you've only been here a few weeks, and already you're becoming quite an asset. [[User:Luna Santin|Luna Santin]] 12:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)}}
:Thanks! :) [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 13:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

==Recent edits to 198.97.67.59==
This is a firewall which assigns a common IP address to multiple users. Making edits anonymously is within policy. "Sock puppet" is a highly pejorative accusation which implies many things which have not been used here (such as being deceptive about the several accounts being connected and using the accounts to avoid the 3RR rule). Unless you have specific reason to believe that these multiple accounts have been used to circumvent policy (and, since they haven't, I'd be curious as to what your reasons are), please assume good faith.

Thank you.[[User:198.97.67.56|198.97.67.56]] 12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:Please whack a <nowiki>{{</nowiki>SharedIP|''your organisation (if you connect through a corporate proxy) or ISP''}} on your talk page so that we can tell that your IP is being used by many users. We generally assume otherwise. Removal of sockpuppet notices is a strong indication of sockpuppetry itself, see the Yankeefan2006.. saga above therefore it's one of the things I revert automatically. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

::I believe you are a SysOp? Please review this matter. Look at the discussion regarding the anon edits in [[Illegal Immigration in the United States]]. Note that a couple of admins insist on posting a tag in the following user accounts and that according to Wiki policy, the tags "should not be added in the cases of accusations of sock puppetry which have not been proven, nor should they be added in the case of an legitimate alternate account, especially where the user may wish to maintain anonymity. Abuse of these tags will result in warning and potentially blocking."
::I have stated that I wish to remain anon and I have made it a point to clarify that I am the same person using several IPs to connect anonymously. They have provided no commentary at all - let alone specific evidence to their claims - as to why they continue to put these statements in these useraccount pages. And while they have stated that I have been disruptive, the only "disruption" I have provided (and the only evidence of any "disruption" they can point to) is about me insisting on remaining anonymous.
::The user accounts in question are as follows 198.97.67.59, 198.97.67.56, 198.97.67.58, 198.97.67.59, and 198.97.67.57.

::Thank you for addressing this at your earliest convenience.[[User:198.97.67.56|198.97.67.56]] 18:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to these issues, these admins have included the tags in the account for 71.74.209.82.
I believe this is an attempt to force me to stop using the anon option despite the fact that using the anon option is legal and that they can't specify any actions committed by me which have been abusive of this.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:I am sending this to the mediation cabal, please ignore.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 01:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AMER-C not a sysop] but have [[User:MER-C/monobook.js|a reversion script]] that gives me rollback controls. As for the cabal, you must be registered because only registered users can create non-talk pages. The shared IP tags weren't applied properly, since most of my directions were also inserted. I'll rectify this, because I did a WHOIS on you and found out exactly where you edit from. The shared account userboxes and sockpuppet notices are no longer necessary.

[[Special:Userlogin|Creating an account]] will get rid of this fuss extremely easily, then you wouldn't have to worry about dynamic IPs and we can't find out who you really are or where you come from without asking [[WP:RFCU|someone]].

WHOIS tells me that the two distinct IPs above are unrelated - one from Ohio and one from Virginia. I'll get rid of the notices [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 02:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::Thank you and I am strongly considering getting an account. Its just that I didn't feel like submitting to someone threatening or pushing me into it and I didn't really, and still don't, see a reason for it[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 03:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

----

Hello, MER-C I noticed that you have concluded that 71.74.209.82 and 198.97.67.?? are different people. I would like to point out the [[United Pentecostal Church International]] page, where the edit history and the discussion page make it clear that they are in fact the same person. A good many this individuals edits revolve around the use of Acts 2:38 in the Overview section. For example as 198.97.67.57 Revision as of 07:01, 27 May 2006 (restoring NPOV) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Pentecostal_Church_International&oldid=55409324] and as 71.74.209.82 Current revision (18:34, 6 August 2006) (Unsourced) . There are multiple similar examples.

From the discussion page it would also appear that they are one and the same:

Exhibit A)

''Seems that someone needs a lesson on what Wiki considers vandalism. "Wiki vandalism is generally defined as editing a wiki in a way that is intentionally disruptive or destructive. There are four generally acknowledged types of vandalism: deletion of legitimate information, insertion of nonsense or irrelevant content, addition of unwanted commercial links (spam), and policy violations specific to that wiki." As all articles on Wiki should be written with NPOV, deliberate persistant efforts to remove NPOV (and thus violate the NPOV policy) are an act of vandalism. Please stop.198.97.67.59 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)''

Exhibit B)

''I believe DCMGOV intended to post this here instead of in my personal talk space "Do NOT remove Acts 2:38 from the repentance section of the UPCI page again. If you don't agree with the UPCI doctrine, discuss it in the discussion page, but you cannot remove fundamental portions of the organization's doctrine simply because you do not like it." 71.74.217.83 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's my reply 1.) The philosophy of Wikipedia is against one person controlling the contents of an article by telling others what they can or can't or should or shouldn't post in it - only Wiki policy can do that 2.) My version of the article does not remove Acts 2:38 from the article''

Notice the similarities in tone. (71.74.217.83 leads to the same address in VA as 71.74.209.82)

Further 71.74.209.82 appears to acknowledge ownership of the other IP addresses in his/her [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-08-06|Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04 Admins attempting to force end of anon option]]

''I want to point out that these admins have provided no commentary with these tags providing specific verifiable evidence of abuse by myself in using these multiple IPs. The IPs disputed are 198.97.67.59, 198.97.67.56, 198.97.67.57, 198.97.67.58, and 71.74.209.82 The admins are Will Beback and Jossi.
Sources
71.74.209.82 01:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)''

At no time has he/she denied ownership of the other offending addresses. But appeared happy to allow you to reach that conclusion on your own, and failed to correct the misunderstanding.

In sum, there is clear evidence outside of the [[Illegal immigration to the United States]] page that these are in fact the same person.

Thanks [[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 06:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, looks like the IPs weren't as unrelated as I thought. On further inspection (using the City link at the bottom of an IP's talk page) are about 60km away from each other. The Virginia IP was registered to an Time Warner subsidary in Virginia. (compare [http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/city.ch?ip=71.74.217.83] [http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=198.97.67.56] and [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Wright-Patterson+Air+Force+Base&ie=UTF8&ll=40.041284,-84.302216&spn=0.935684,2.738342&om=1] ). Therefore it is possible that they are the same person and given the evidence above it is likely. I think the correct conclusion to be reached is:

{{cquote|One of the employees at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base also edits Wikipedia at home with an IP of 71.74.209.82.}}

Not enough to put back the sockpuppet templates, but enough to place a notice somewhere on 71.74.209.82's user (talk) page about this issue. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 11:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::Sorry to confuse you on that. I do post from the different IPs. I have not tried to mislead anyone on that fact. However, the Wright-Patterson IPs are shared by many other users as well.
To correct this confusion, I will no longer be posting from the WPAFB IPs.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to go ahead and create a user name.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== the thumbs up ==

[[Image:ThumbsUp.jpg|thumb|88px|left]] award goes to you for reverting an "opinion" that someone had added to mine. Thanks for keeping an eye on me and about a million others. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 16:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 03:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[Talk:Alliance for Aging Research/Temp]] ==

You identified [[Alliance for Aging Research]] as a copyvio. I just created a non-copyvio version at [[Talk:Alliance for Aging Research/Temp]]. [[User:TruthbringerToronto|TruthbringerToronto]] ([[User_talk:TruthbringerToronto|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/TruthbringerToronto|contribs)]] 06:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:I see you have recycled some of the old text, but that should be fine due to the small amount of it. Thanks. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

==Aussie pingu trivia==
From [[User talk:Aussie pingu]] you've quickly flagged up vandalism by this editor, who's now been indefinitely blocked for the account only being used for vandalism. AP contributed an article on [[St Francis of Assisi Primary School]] which appeared innocuous but not notable, so I've flagged it for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion accordingly. Thanks for your good word, ..[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 09:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

==Hellsing (Miilenium)==

I don't know why, but for some reason you reverted my change and called it vandalism. I feel offended by this acussation because I was only doing my best to improve the article in question. Walter C. Dornez has an article elsewhere, so I didn't feel the need to repeat it elsewhere, hence why I linked to that page (hopefully I did it right). I would like to know why my edit was reverted, and if possible revert the edit you made so that I can continue with my contributions to the article. {{unsigned|81.159.8.54}}

: Oops, my bad. Just reverted myself. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. :) {{unsigned|81.159.8.54}}

== BOGUS REVERSION - MISTAKE? ==

Hi, you've just reverted some very important sentiments that I have made regarding a vabdal that is trying to become admin. Can you please tell me why you have done this? {{unsigned|86.29.114.156}}
:Woah, woah, woah. Calm down. Take a deep breath and stop shouting. If you've got problems, approach the admins or the reverting user civilly or you'll get blocked for being offensive. And anyway, Ryulong is a vandal fighter, just like I am. If you attack him just like you did, it says a lot about you and your intentions. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::And now you are vandalising my talk page. Just as I thought. Go away sockpuppet! [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 10:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

==Thanks==

For reverting the vandalism to my userpage. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|Talk]] 10:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. Grr, I wish that vandal would go away. He's been here as well. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 10:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

== CSD G8 ==

Users need not have user pages in order to have talk pages. That said, I'm speedying [[User talk:Ger-Jan]] as an attack page (I did a translation and it says "You are stupid" in Dutch). [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] 13:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:Thought there was no such user, with no talk page nor welcome message. (Turns out the user had made 2 edits in 2 months.) [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 13:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

== Scissett Middle School ==

Thank you for nominating this school for deletion. Schools are not covered by this notice for speedy deletion so I have removed it. In general, articles on schools are considered notable and are not to be deleted.--Fil[[WP:EA|e]] [[User talk:Brendanconway|Éireann]] 13:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:I thought it was a vanity page, since the creator's only contributions have been on that page, etc. Oops. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 02:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Thanks ==

No Problem dude :) '''[[Special:Emailuser/Robomaeyhem|°≈§→]]''' [[User:Robomaeyhem|Robom]][[User:Robomaeyhem/Esperanza|æ]][[User:Robomaeyhem|yhem:]] [[User Talk:Robomaeyhem|'''T''']]/[[Special:Contributions/Robomaeyhem|←§≈°]] 06:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

== Your change to my user page ==
Hello. You recently reverted edits made by an IP address to my user page. I assume you thought it was vandalism. Actually it was just me tweaking a couple sections but forgetting to sign in. Thanks for watching out, though. - [[User:Square_pear|square_pear]] | [[User talk:Square_pear|talk]] 17:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-07T22:40:57Z

71.74.209.82: /* ACLU position paper */

==Illegal immigration to the United States==
This is a start in moving this topic to it's own article. It is largely been copied from the main Illegal immigration article. Please please add nice things to it. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 11:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

==Comments on POV statements==

Hi Wallie;

I've added a few additions to your original scheme and hopefully expanded the discusion on this issue. It will be interesting to see if anything useful develops out of your new topic. Unfortuantely, many seem to be prejudices wired for sound and don't want to discuss things in a civilized manner.

Good Luck

[[User:D'lin|D'lin]]

:D'lin, it appears that you inserted a large number of POV statements. Have you read over our [[WP:NPOV]] policy? We need to reflect all points of view, but we mustn't appear to endorse one or the other. Let's make sure that this article is [[WP:V|verifiable]] and NPOV. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 01:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Will beback,

Have YOU read over the NPOV policy? It appears you strongly endorse one side and not the other. Its hard to put in an opposing factual information if one side decides (in their infinite wisdom) that everything they disagree with must be POV material. Trying to present both sides of an argument with those kinds of ground rules is not only patently unfair and dishonest it doesn't help inform people of the true situation.

For example you recently deleted: "Many believe that this illegal immigrant flow has costs that far out weigh any slight benefits. Only by significantly reducing the number of illegal immigrants, drug dealers and criminals crossing the borders can important ecosystems, cities, cultures and traditional lifestyles damage be minimized. Government administrative apathy and failure to act along the Southwest border and in the interior enforcement of existing laws is the single biggest obstacle to doing what the majority want."

I would like to know 1 [one] point that is NOT factually correct.

Cheers,

D'lin

::What is your source for that information and opinion? We can include POV statements, but they should be attributed to the speaker. So it'd be OK if we wrote that, "John Smith, a notable commentator, says that government apathy is the single biggest..." But we can't write that as if it were an undisputed fact. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

==Moving day==

Moving stuff over from [[Illegal Alien]]. Good news is that much is duplciated aleady, i.e., here already, and I have de-duped this. If I have clobbered anything (I don't thinkl I have!), it is not intentional, and anyone is welcome to put it back. Also, if you think anything new is POV, well I have just copied it across. Lets keep this article free of POV tags (big challenge huh?). Happy editing. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

==Partial "Clean up"==

Hey, this is [[User:ProfessorPaul]]. I have begun the process of "cleaning up" this article; I have completed the first 1/3 of it (approximately). I agree it does need to be cleaned up, but I believe we can easily maintain NPOV. I will try to work on the rest of the article tomorrow. [[User:ProfessorPaul|ProfessorPaul]] 05:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

:Please explain each of your edits. So far you haven't explained any of your work, except for this note. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 05:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Will/Professor Paul

:Hope you don't think I am interfering here... I really hope you two guys can work together, as I'm sure you can. I can see that the work presented by you, Professor Paul is of a very high quality, and it would be a pity to see it all reverted, or some silly edit war begin. On the other hand, Will may have some reservations as to the changes. It would be really nice if Professor Paul's changes were made, and fully agreed by Will.

[[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 07:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. On having further thoughts, it may be best to leave the article changed as it is now by Professor Paul, and for you, Will to edit/put back anything that you disagree with. What do you think? [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 07:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

::As long as edits, especialy deletions, are explained, then we can all work together. Unexplained deletions are very close to vandalism, and tend to be reverted. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 19:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

== Hey, check out this odd Wiki link ==
Hey Wallie and Will, check out this Wiki link [[Mexican Immigration Propaganda]]. It is a "stub" of an article that HARDLY has NPOV. It also has a single author. I may want to "wade into it" and NPOV it. What do you two think? Check it out. [[User:ProfessorPaul|ProfessorPaul]] 03:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:Sounds OK. Bit of a strange topic, though. You never know, though. Might turn out OK. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 21:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

== Giving the Bush speech its own "small" section ==
Hey, how about we give the Bush speech its own "small" section in this article? I will move the small paragraph from "border security" and use that as the starting point. I have a reliable source of the speech's text [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_text Text of Speech from the Associated Press via Yahoo!]. And (hope this goes without saying), I will maintain NPOV. [[User:ProfessorPaul|ProfessorPaul]] 04:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

== Political Groups POV ==

The section of the article which discuses Political groups is very biased and needs to be entirely re-written.

== NPOV - entire article should be reviewed ==

Sections discussing political organizations are biased.

Sections discussing illegal immigration in general are biased and only directed at illegal immigration from the Mexican border. There is no discussion of illegal immigration from other countries.

The article does not cover both issues of the debate - if that is indeed the intention of this article then both sides should be adequately discussed or referenced.

If this is an article about illegal immigration then both sides of the issue should be discussed from a neutral perspective. Arguments about taxes/healthcare/etc. should contain a neutral perspective and no offer speculations as to the effects of illegal immigration unless they are discussed in a section for "arguments of effects".

:O boy. Wasn't long before this came along. To be expected, considering the subject matter. However...
:* Would you be so kind as to sign your comment. Thank you.
:* If you think the article is POV, or there is any other part you are unhappy with, :please please change it.
:* Naturally include both sides of the debate.
:* Please also illustrate with examples from of illegal immigration to the US from the other countries you mention. This is highly relevant, and would be helpful.
:[[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

:NPOV is corrected. It was overly biased to the right. [[User:Liberal102|Liberal102]] 04:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Section 2.7, beyond the first sentence, seems almost on the point of worthlessness. Is a citation of an editorial (i.e., an article written from a point of view) enough to validate the statement that "many native English speakers are unhappy with bilingualism"?? If the "issue is not specific to illegal immigration", why bother including it at all? [[User:A b|A b]] 03:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:The paragraph as is does seem weak. Perhaps, someone could give a better source and expand upon the impact of differing languages and cultures as relevant to immigration. I do think that the paragraph could possibly contribute to the article as whole. Those opposed to immigration see non-native speakers as an inconvience and other cultures as threatening to their version of the "American way"; however, their xenophobia and motivations against immigration are truly realized by such sentiments. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 04:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

==Benefits Section==

I think the article should go into more detail about the benefits illegal immigrants receive. Everybody knows that illegals get school, food stamps, medical care, and do indeed have fraudulent social security and medicade cards and this was even covered by CNN. If you want to give credibility to the article it should cover this in more detail or people will think its a joke.
:So don't wait for others. Include anything you think is relevant. Naturally, you can expect others to have different viewpoints. This article will always be controversial, but hopefully, as you said, it will be "not taken as a joke", and be informative. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 19:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

==Bush Speech has a new "critics" section==
Hey, everyone, I have noticed a lot of back and forth with people calling President Bush "a liar" in the article. :( If you think he is a liar (and you have no sources), then say it HERE on the talk page. If you have a source, let your SOURCE say he is a liar, then let the source back it up and list the reason/fact/theory WHY Bush is a liar (lots of people said Clinton was a liar too; same rule in his case, too). *whew!* Now--I hope this will help--I have added a "critics to Bush speech" section. It is sourced from CNN and lists critics from the political left and the political right. If anyone wishes to ADD a critic to the Bush speech or policy, add it there. OK? :) Have a good day. [[User:ProfessorPaul|ProfessorPaul]] 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

:BTW, the coverage of the Bush 5/15/06 speech is spread across at least three articles, but this is the most comprehensive, so whatever we want to say let's say it here and we can consolidate them all together in time. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 06:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

==Organized political groups 2 ==

''Why do you think this is biased...? ''

Many organzied political groups have begun to speak out on the issue of illegal immigration (and also legal immigration) resulting in a wide range of policy options under active consideration. One proposal is to reduce the levels of both legal and illegal immigration into the U.S. (see: [[immigration reduction]]). Probably the most important group advocating this position is the [[Federation for American Immigration Reform]] (sometimes referred to as FAIR).''

''* This bit is probably neutral''

Another notable political group, the [[Minuteman Project]] has been lobbying Congress for stronger enforcement of the border laws and is reported to be organizing private property owners along the U.S.-Mexican border for the purpose of building a fence to discourage illegal border crossings. {{fact}}

''* This bit probably presents side 1 of the debate''

Other groups are organzing protests against the federal classification of illegal immigrant status as criminals. These groups also demand various [[right|rights]] be established in law for illegal immigrants to become permanent legal residents (with permission to work) or (eventually) a path for full U.S. citizenship. These groups have also organzied large [[protests]] and [[rallies]] in many major urban centers in the U.S., including [[New York City]], [[Los Angeles, California|Los Angeles]], [[Chicago, Illinois|Chicago]], [[San Francisco, California|San Francisco]], and [[Dallas, Texas|Dallas]].

''* This bit probably presents side 2 of the debate''

However, some have reported that the movement may have generated a significant backlash among those opposed to illegal immigration, which, according to a number of political polls, includes the majority of Americans.

''* This bit probably presents (only slightly) side 1 of the debate''

''So, if you analyze it, it's maybe not too bad.... ?''

[[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

== POV/NPOV Tags ==
What's wrong with the article? Please say so. We can then make it OK, and remove the tags. Thank you. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

:I also don't see why the POV tag is necessary. I haven't carefully read every word, but it looks alright to me. [[User:Tixity|Tix]] 22:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

::OK. So you think everything is OK now. (no news is good news). The POV tags can be removed, if everyone is OK with that. Thanks. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 18:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

:::OK. I now have removed them. Thanks. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 06:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

== Merging with the US Immigration Debate ==
The two are definitely connected.

Options:

* 1) The US immigration debate article should be merged into this one.
* 2) This article should have a short precis about the debate, and the rest of the debate text could be merged into the "Debate" article. Naturally, bits outside the current debate should remain here.

The second option is probably trickier, as which bits of text should go into which article? The subjects are intertwined. Both options have their merits. Note, however, this article is the parent and the "Debate" article the child, just as this article is the child of "Illegal immigration.".

[[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

:I approve a move in the direction you indicate. The long section on the bill there, should have its own article or be placed in an article on that bill maybe. Just one thought if they are merged. Depends what others think. --[[User:Northmeister|Northmeister]] 19:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::I like the second option better. The debate encompasses legal and illegal immigration, so merging is not a good option.--[[User:Rockero|Rockero]] 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
==Language==

''Illegal immigrant'' is the preferred language per the AP Stylebook and should be used consistently throughout the article. Any attempt to change the language, whether to ''illegal alien'' or ''undocumented alien''/''undocumented worker'', is POV, and will be reverted. [[User:Calwatch|Calwatch]] 04:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

:The language matters are not clear, and we don't need to be dogmatice about it. This isn't the AP, and their stylebook does not apply here. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 07:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

::Will Beback, I agree. I changed the opening paragraph to make a little more sense (calling an 'undocumented worker' an 'illegal immigrant' defeats the purpose of defining 'undocumented worker'). Would it be better to use different terms throughout the article so that revert wars do not ensue on such a sensitive topic? [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 00:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:::No, we need to stick to one term. I propose illegal immigrant, since it's the title of the article. The point of that paragraph is that politicans talk about "undocumented workers" but they do not say that they want to deport the children and parents of their undocumented workers, nor of their brethren that don't work. [[User:Calwatch|Calwatch]] 01:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Ok, why one term? I thought the point of that paragraph was to explain that there are differences in labels - not to push an agenda. I've read the entire article again and the number of times the term, illegal, is used becomes quite annoying. 'Illegal immigration' is the title of the article and represents an action - not a person. I plan to contribute to this article by making it more readable without bias. Hopefully, we will continue in discussion. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

::::I've made a few changes to the language, corrected some grammar, and cleared up a few paragraphs. Please discuss here before reverting. There is a great deal of redundancy between the sections labeled 'Illegal immigration debate' and the sections 'Documentation', 'Legal issues', and 'Criminal activity'. I think we should work to avoid that. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::The person is here illegally, however, and their very presence in the country is an illegal act. I will concede "undocumented worker" when dealing specifically with the issue of those who are not authorized to work in the United States. However, "undocumented" implies that someone forgot their papers and not that they are in this country illegally. I would be fine with "unauthorized immigrant" which appears to be the ''legal'' term used by the BCIS: [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/2000ExecSumm.pdf] but I concur with the AP Stylebook's explanation of why ''undocumented'' is unacceptable. [[User:Calwatch|Calwatch]] 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

==Major Crossing Points==
I'm currently searching for some major crossing points on the U.S.-Mexico border. A) Does anybody have this info? B) Should we add it to the article?

: B) I don't really understand what such an addition would contribute to the article. Additionally, the article already has numerous points about immigration along the US-Mexico border. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

::We already have [[U.S.-Mexico border]]. That would be the appropriate place for listing licit and illicit crossing points. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

== Human Rights ==

This section is more than a little incoherent. It needs to be clarified as to how the various things it talks about relate to human rights. It also badly needs a topic sentence that mentions (or at least alludes to) human rights. I'd work on it myself, but it's 12:45 a.m. where I am and I'm not nocturnal. --[[User:WikiMarshall|WikiMarshall]] 07:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
==Proposal==
[[User:DKalkin|DKalkin]] has proposed a naming convention for immigration-related topics. Please join the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration)]].--[[User:Rockero|Rockero]] 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== "Statistics" ==

A user with the IP [[User:172.198.20.32|172.198.20.32]] added in a list of "Illegal immigration statistics" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&oldid=61056999], citing his or her source as "2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigration". I find this unlikely, since the INS became ICE and was folded into the Department of Homeland Security since its creation in 2002. A websearch revealed numerous references to this report of anti-illegal-immigration websites (ALIPAC, etc.), but no hits for the report itself, and none from government websites. Some of the stats may be accurate. However, some of them had only tenuous connections to illegal immigration (i.e. number of Spanish-language broadcasters). The emphasis on crime leads me to suspect an agenda. I have removed the stats in question and am leaving a note here so that if we can get some accurate statistics and reliable sources for them, they can be included at a later time.--[[User:Rockero|Rockero]] 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

==Summary Data==
Shouldn't the table marked "Illegal Immigration Info" which provides profile summary information on illegal immigrants be in the profile summaries of illegal immigrants section?[[User:198.97.67.57|198.97.67.57]] 11:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

== The Quote at the beginning. ==

The quote at the beginning is incredibly biased and I removed it because it does not provide any new information and comes from a biased website.

I pasted the deleted quote below.

'''"We are letting in criminals, subversives, the insane, the diseased and the poverty stricken, uneducated and helpless of the world and all of these mentioned categories become a burden to America's middle class. We are experiencing an invasion, a "reconquista," if you will, designed and orchestrated by the Mexican government. America's immigration laws were set in place to protect the American public. The American public is being victimized by our own government through its pandering to the cheap labor, ethnic identity groups and victimology groups in our society."''' US Border Patrol Supervisor David J. Stoddard [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060518]

:Please sign your comments with 4~s. Thank you for protecting the integrity of the article. That contributor has had multiple biased, unsourced, and editorialized postings on this article - including the lastest where s/he gives an opposition point only to counter it within the same poorly written sentence. Your efforts are appreciated. Keep up the good work. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 01:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the quote does not provide any new information, it just confirms what is known from many other sources, but it does have a lot of credibility and is a good summary of the issues. David J. Stoddard is an experienced Border Patrol Supervisor with a lot more on the ground experience [17+ yrs] then all of us and may very well be correct. The website the quote is stored on is totally immaterial.

[[User:D'lin|D'lin]] 03:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user placed another opinionated quote in the introduction. I have deleted it. Please discuss here before adding commentary to the intro. Thanks! [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 23:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the quote let the readers judge for themselves: ''"Yet while these workers add little to our economy, they come at great cost, because they are not economic abstractions but human beings, with their own culture and ideas—often at odds with our own."''[http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

[[User:D'lin|D'lin]] 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

==half the article focuses on the Mexican border==
But if you look at the statistics provided, about half the visa overstayers and about half the illegal immigrants in this country originate from Mexico, so that seems reasonable.{{unsigned|198.97.67.57}}

Actually you are correct, the article should spend more time on Mexican illegal immigration what with about 1,500,000 illegal immigrants per year -100,000 from Canada and perhaps -400,000 more from the rest ot the world this would seem to indicate that 2/3 [67%] of the illegal immigration [1,000,000/year] is occurring from Mexico.

[[User:D'lin|D'lin]] 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV dispute ==

I attempted to delete a link that appeared to be an advertisement for an "anti-illegal" (sic) website. My edit was reverted. In response, I added a link to offer a balance of opinions. I propose that either both should stay as phrased or both should be removed. Please discuss before taking action. Thanks! [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 23:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaving the issue of it being full of loaded language (like "shrill"), the link you want is full of information which is unverifiable or flat out wrong (such as its claim that "AICF's web site suggests that immigrants have 'sown the seeds of ethnic strife in America'" - I checked, it doesn't). What isn't unverifiable or wrong is insinuation, such as when the author of that piece insinuates that these groups are overreporting their membership. This link is an attack piece plain and simple. What's more, the SPLC has been accussed by several people (Horowitz being one of them) of overreporting the threat of racism in order to increase monetary donations it receives. The link you provided is questionable (as it is full of unverified data, flat out wrong data, and unsupported accusatory insinuation, and has its publisher has a contested track record) and the article is full of loaded language. To call it "an attack piece on anti-illegal immigration groups by a left-wing activist group" is being kind.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Both the discussed links are POV. Either both should stay or both should be removed. If Horowitz says something isn't racist, then it must be true, right? I mean African Americans should be grateful for the enslavement of ancestors...at least according to his statements. He is far from anything moderate if you were attempting to make a point. I will change back the description, and will avoid calling the POV numbersusa website what it really is. Additionally, I have placed a POV tag due to the current disagreement and numerous anonymous posts that have an obvious bias to them. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If a link is POV isn't relevant to whether it should be in this article. What is relevant to this article is whether the overall effect of _this_ article is NPOV and whether POV sources have verifiable data. You disagree with NumbersUSA. That's fine. How about addressing your disagreement in a productive way by providing verifiable data which paints a different provides a different perspective? This attack piece by SPLC doesn't do that (it is demonstrably false (such as when it lies about what are on other web pages), unverifiable (such as when it accusses others of racism), and spineless (such as when it insinuates that others are lying about the size of their membership)). Again, I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. (I actually dislike people who agree with me but can't defend their position in a responsible manner. I don't dislike people who disagree with me but can defend themselves in a responsible manner.) Step up to the plate and provide intellectual content. The tactic you have taken (making unsupported accusations against NumbersUSA because it provides statistics you don't like) is agenda driven and does nothing to address this dissention between you and I in a productive way. We can, and likely will, change the link to SPLC back and forth until the end of time if we stay on our current path.
I'm open to reason. Give me something to reason with.
As for Horowitz, he didn't say that blacks should be grateful for their ancestor's slavery. He said that blacks should be grateful to the US for their current quality of life. Go to the source, not to some second hand left-wing demogogue.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

*as stated above: ''flat out wrong (such as its claim that "AICF's web site suggests that immigrants have 'sown the seeds of ethnic strife in America'" - I checked, it doesn't).'' umm, actually it does, located here[http://www.immigrationcontrol.com/short_history.htm] - ''These changes including amnesty for several million illegal aliens have '''sown the seeds of ethnic strife in America.''' Today, over 85% of all immigrants to the U.S. are non-European.''

Now if you are going to include a link to any article, please list the correct name of the article. Wikipedia is after all an encyclopedia, not a blog, and it should retain some level of maturity and professionalism. The article is named “Anti-Immigration Groups” not “Attack piece on anti-illegal immigration groups by left-wing activist group”. If you are unclear on this point, please refer to [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], particularly the part about “NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." Thanks, [[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of creating an encyclopedia article, use verifiable sources (and there's no policy on naming links the same as the title of that page). I recommend that you review the NPOV policy yourself.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 13:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the best way to resolve this dispute is to remove the SPLC link and you do your homework and find a legitimate source which has verifiable data which disagrees with NumbersUSA.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 13:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, the link you want doesn't discuss illegal immigration. It discusses anti-illegal immigration groups. If you want to create an article focusing on anti-illegal immigration groups, your article has a better chance of belonging there. It doesn't belong here.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 14:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

:I've remoevd both advocacy websites, pro and con. Let's stick to news sources. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 20:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

== Images ==

The recently-added images, [[:Image:Immigrant fence.jpg]] and [[:Image:Immigrant.jpg]], are not appropriate. The picture of an individual is recognizable, and so may an infringement on the individual. The photo of people climbing over a fence is original research - they could be anywhere. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 00:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

==Recent edits==
It is hypocritical to argue that links to advocacy groups should be removed and that we should stick only to news articles then TWICE reinsert the link to an [http://www.derechoshumanosaz.net/deaths.php4 advocacy group] just because it supports your political agenda.
Also, the Arizona Star link is just a link to some deaths. It doesn't really make the point that it is used for. The only point it makes is that peope have died in the desert.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 21:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::The ''Arizona Daily Star'' is not an advocacy website, it's a newspaper. However there is no rule against using advocacy websites as for references if they meet [[WP:RS|relaible sources]]. There is a difference between using a website as a source for a specific facutal assertion, and simply adding it as an external link. The advocacy sites were removed from this page because a) they are included in several other pages already, and b) there was a dispute over which ones to include here. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The Arizona Star doesn't make the point its claimed to make. Further, you wrote "Let's stick to news sources" and are now moving the goal posts. I know of no policy which establishes a relevant distinction in how external links and links to support claims in the article are used. Simple logic suggests that, if there is to be made a distinction, links in the article should have a higher standard than external links. There is a dispute as to whether advocacy groups should be used in the article. We can't pick and choose which advocacy groups are permitted based on our own political agendas.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

::The relevant guidelines are [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:EL]]. Note that there are many articles on this topic, and some already have full lists of advocacy websites. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 21:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to those sources, they make my point even stronger. The Arizona Star article, by its own confession, is full of unverifiable data. A reference to unreliable data is an unreliable reference. As per Wiki policy, "bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor". Therefore, I'm deleting it. Further, as per the SPLC article, it isn't necessary to lower the numbersUSA source to its level as the SPLC link (as originally linked to) fails on the point of "One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view" (which means that it needs to be linked to as an unreliable source) and its claims that anti-illegal immigration groups are racist are unverifiable (they aren't supported in the SPLC article).
Again, thanks, but by pointing me in the direction of these policies, you've made my point stronger.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters3c6a] deleted as it is an advocacy site
http://regulus.azstarnet.com/borderdeaths/results.php?month=00&year=2006 removed as it doesn't make the point claimed for it. "In some areas like the [[U.S.-Mexico border]] in [[Arizona]] and [[new Mexico]] these illegal methods are often dangerous. " deleted as it doesn't have a source.
http://www.derechoshumanosaz.net/deaths.php4 deleted as per discussion earlier on talk page
"In addition to all these hazards illegal immigrants are often abandoned by their human traffickers if there are difficulties, often leaving them to die of thirst, suffocation or heat prostration in the process. Others may be victims of intentional killing, rape or robbery by their often unscrupulous "coyote" guides as at least ~7% of all deaths documented in the desert's of the Southwest are the result of gunshots or blunt force trauma. (See details in : [http://www.derechoshumanosaz.net/deaths.php4 ], overview in [[Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border]]) "
deleted as derechoshumanosaz is an advocacy site and, without it, the other doesn't have a source.
"This extensive illegal immigrant traffic through inhospitable deserts in Arizona and New Mexico has resulted in hundreds of illegal immigrants dying as well as extensive ecological damage to the fragile desert environment and extensive property owners along the border. " deleted as it doesn't have a source
and, btw, these issues were discussed in my last post to the talk page, so don't ask "what note", just read here[[User:198.97.67.58|198.97.67.58]] 12:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

::Please get a username, it's impossible for other eidotrs to know that "198.97.67.58" and "71.74.209.82", etc. are the same person. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A name wouldn't stop someone from logging on with more than one name. That being the case, "it's impossible for other eidotrs to know that "198.97.67.58" and "71.74.209.82", etc. are the same person" isn't much of a reason to get a name. How about just addressing the issues without worrying about who brought them up?

::If you want to be intentionally sneaky, then yes there are ways to do so. If you want to be open and forthright, then you'd get a username. Regarding the info, the www.derechoshumanosaz.net site appears to qualify as a reliable source, as does the Arizona Daily Star. Please don't remove sourced informaiton. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On its top page, the derechoshumanos site states it "fights the militarization of the Southern Border region". This is an advocacy site. You stated you want to not use advocacy sites. Ever since you said that, you've demonstrated an intention to use advocacy sites only when they "support" one side of the issue. Please stop moving the goal posts.
The Arizona Star cite was removed because it doesn't say what it is claimed to say. Please stick to verifiable data and sources.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:Advocacy sites are permissible if they qualify under [[WP:RS]]. My comment about removing advocacy sites only concerned the list of external links. Also, who is Sher Zieve and why are we quoting her? -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

::Sher Ziev's byline states, "Sher Zieve is an author, political commentator, and staff writer for The New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org). Zieve's op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massachusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Ms. Zieve is currently working on her first political book: 'The Liberal's Guide To Conservatives.'"
As for the advocacy links, Wiki policies make no difference between external and internal links. It makes sense, though, to put a higher standard to internal links.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:::An author with no book and no Wikipedia article doesn't appear sufficiently notable to include. Where does it say in [[WP:RS]] that advocacy sites are forbidden? As I recall, they are only banned if they express extremist views. A catalog of dead illegal immigrants isn't an extremist view. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

::::You want to put advocacy groups -in- the article now? I wish you'd make up your mind. Fine. Put all of the advocacy gruops back in which have been taken out in the past week. You don't want to be biased do you?
Assuming, of course, that there isn't some other reason to leave them out - such as derechos (which is taking data from the Arizona Star and claiming it is saying something which the data doesn't actually support.
As for Sher Ziev, I think a reporter whose work has appeared in the Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massuchusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, international news, etc. can hardly be called a minor reporter. What's your standard for a non-minor reporter? Maybe we need to delete other cites (how many news articles in the article were written by people who don't meet your definition of a non-minor reporter, I wonder?) in addition to links to advocacy groups.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::Don't play dumb. There is a difference between links that are used to support a reference, and links which are appended at the end. The standard for notability around here is having an article. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

""There is a difference between links that are used to support a reference, and links which are appended at the end." Where is a relevant difference mentioned in Wiki policies?
"The standard for notability around here is having an article." Okay, so you think Sher Ziev wrote for all of those papers, but never wrote an article??[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:''As for Sher Ziev, I think a reporter whose work has appeared in the Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massuchusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, international news, etc. can hardly be called a minor reporter.''
For what its worth:

'''The Oregon Herald''': 
She has had 5 columns printed in The Oregon Herald this year. “''The Oregon Herald is a non-profit online news site that provides local, state, national and international news in a headline list format. Updated bi-weekly.''”

“''Many of our reporters are college journalism students, both graduate and undergraduate from universities around the globe. As you might see, we offer an alternative to the standard news website.''”

Based on this [http://www.oregonherald.com/home.htm?m=newscontact page], these 5 columns appear to have been self-submitted; without any expectation of financial compensation.

'''Dallas Times''' 
[[Dallas Times Herald]] (aka: Dallas Times) ceased publication on 9 Dec 1991. (This is the only Dallas Times that I could find per Google)

'''Boston Star, Massuchusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun''' 
The [http://www.bostonstar.com/ Boston Star], [Massachusetts Sun Massuchusetts Sun], and the [http://www.sacramentosun.com/ Sacramento Sun] are news feeds/News portals run by [[NewsIsFree]] “NewsIsFree is an online news reader, RSS Directory and news search engine.”
[[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 05:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I didn't know that. On the one hand, she's been writing for over ten years (assuming she wrote for the Dallas Times before 1991). On the other hand, several of them are newsfeeds. Still, many well-known newspapers use newsfeeds for various articles.
In the end, I don't think the case has been made that she's not a respectable source, but I think you've made the point that she is questionable. If you want to remove her comments from the article, I'm okay with it - assuming we will hold other journalists in the article to the same standard. On one condition, that we establish an operative definition of what is and what is not a good news source.[[User:198.97.67.59|198.97.67.59]] 11:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This all seems kind of silly, the web sites listed could easily be replaced with other sites with similar information and the authors cited could be replaced by other authors. The information is the key not the authors who report the information. Of course some of the information is from advocacy sites of one kind or the other; but even they do have some valid information even if there advocacy is patently obvious and easily discounted. Its impossible to get any where near a balanced view on this subject without reading the different points of view put forth by different advocacy web sites. The advocacy sites that do not have valid information, and there are many, should not be included. Some here seem to want to censor the information that's available because it disagrees with their pre-conceptions and think the rest of us should be "saved" from being exposed to other information.

Cheers,

[[User:D'lin|D'lin]] 16:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

::If someone wants to take the time to find proper sources for the same statements and provide them in a way which makes an effort towards NPOV, I'll have no objection. Laziness in not doing that, however, isn't going to fly as an excuse[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 19:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

==bringing NumbersUSA back==
An administrator suggested that we leave links to advocacy groups out of the article. Then he chose to try to push for that in a very biased way (working to leave some pro-illegal links in while removing pro-border security links). Now, another pro-illegal link has been put back in. At this point we need to reexamine how we are going to treat the issue of links to advocacy groups. Until we do so, to maintain a balanced perspective, I'm going to put the NumbersUSA link back in the external links section for as long as there is a pro-illegal link in the external links section.[[User:198.97.67.57|198.97.67.57]] 11:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to the discussion but I would argue that in is in the Wiki spirit to have as much information as posible, as long as the information is relevant and presented in context. The solution may be to have sub-headings for the links. Something like: "These a pro and these are against"
[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 05:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

:We have an article about [[NumbersUSA]] so it's better to provide an internal link to that article rather than an external link. In general, we want provide information on our pages rather than sending readers out to other sites. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

::Wiki policy (under [[WP:RS]]) states, "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference". In other words, we do -not- want to provide information on our pages rather than sending readers out to other sites. Doing both seems reasonable (as Wikipedia makes a good tertiary, summary source), but using Wikipedia as a primary source is against policy. We should include primary sources wherever possible.[[User:198.97.67.59|198.97.67.59]] 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

:::We're not citing NumbersUSA as a source. We already have an external link to NumbersUSA in the article about that topic. Incidentally, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

::::"We already have an external link to NumbersUSA in the article about that topic." I did a search for NumbersUSA in the article and couldn't find it. "secondary sources are preferable to primary sources" where is that stated in Wiki policies?[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::It's at the bottom, under "External links". For the second item, see [[WP:RS]]. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 20:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::Explain what it means to provide information, but not be a source of information.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

==Legal Issues==
"There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics." Is not a legal issue.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 19:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::I would suggest you stop editwarring for every single edit made. I would also suggest you take a break from editing, before you find yourself forced to take such a break. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

:::I suggest you spend more time learnig Wiki policy and abiding by it and less time talking about others.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 19:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

== NSF on Immigration Economics ==

I deleted the information under this heading as it is repeated word by word under the heading "Illegal Immigration Economics". Also, the sub topic "immigartion with and without quotas" was moved to "legal Issues".

[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 00:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

== Visa overstay ==

I cleaned up the definition of "overstay" to make it more generic as tourist visa overstay are only one part of the definition. The new definition includes all visa oevrstays.

[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 00:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

== illegal immigration on wikipedia ==

There are multiple instances where an editor has utilized the word, "here", when talking about where immigrants have gone. Currently to my understanding, the wording states the immigrants are on wikipedia. I think they may be referring to the United States, but this article is full of unintelligent, poor writing. If someone would clean this up, maybe the article could be taken seriously. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 14:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

:You have very poor reading comprehension skills if you think "here" refers to Wikipedia in the article. "Here" refers to "the United States". Feel free to edit to clear your confusion.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 14:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

::If "here" is to be assumed as the United States, then its usage would be POV. Someone living outside of the United States would not understand the current assumption. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

==[[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]]==

Regarding some comments in this page: '''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.'''

Some suggestions:

* Discuss the article, not the subject;
* Discuss the edit, not the editor;
* Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
* If you feel attacked, do not attack back. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 15:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

==Deletion of external link==
Why is the external link being deleted by anon?
*[http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org Justice for Immigrants: A Catholic, Parish based organization that supports comprehensive immigration reform]]
I would argue that it is may be useful link. The fact that advoactes "pro-immigration" and that is a Catholic group, is not ground for deletion, unless the material on the website is irrelevant to the subject of the article, or contains original research as stated on [[WP:EL]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 23:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

:If this link is allowed in the article, we should also have links to Catholic groups on other side of the issue and to Muslim, Buddhist, Baptist, Mormon, Atheist, Wiccan, and Shinto groups on both sides of the issue. Every pro-illegal immigration link needs to be balanced with an anti-illegal immigration link. Every Catholic link needs to be balanced with a link to another religion. Are you willing to have the article cluttered up with external links? [[User:70.108.100.130|70.108.100.130]] 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

:Two more things:
:# What is "comprehensive immigration reform"? Meaningless politicalspeak. Any link should have an accurate description of what the group actually stands for, such as: "This group supports large increases in legal immigration levels and widespread amnesty for illegal aliens."
:# That Miami Herald "No human being is illegal" editorial should go too. As an aside: just what in the world is a "human being"? Do we talk about our pets as a "cat being" or "dog being"? Is that tree in your backyard an "oak being" or a "maple being"? The term is absurd. Either say "human" or "person", but whoever invented the term "human being" needs to be prosecuted for crimes against linguistics. That aside, the editorial doesn't belong here anyway unless it can be balanced with some on the other side. As a matter of fact it looks like every single external link here is pro-illegal immigration. [[User:70.108.100.130|70.108.100.130]] 23:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As stated in your talk page, you need to cool-off. Your editing behavior is becoming disruptive. Read [[WP:EL]] for guidelines on what can be included on External links sections. You are welcome to add other links, with the caveat that we should end up with a short External Links section. Wkipedia is not a web directory. Also note that [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a battleground]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

: I reserve every right to not cool off when good faith edits are met with a patronozing "test" script from some would-be alpha wolf. [[User:70.108.100.130|70.108.100.130]] 00:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::Anonymous: I am just warning you, that with this attitude of yours, you will (a) piss-off a lot of fellow editors; (b) make this article a pain to edit; and (c) earn youself [[WP:BLOCK|block]] for disruption. Take a break, maybe? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::You know, in all these responses from you I have yet to see you apologize or admit wrongdoing for leaving the "test" script on my talk page. [[User:70.108.100.130|70.108.100.130]] 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I would, if there was a need for it. The deletion of material from an article, such as what you did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=66776650&oldid=66771798 here], with the edit sumamry "rm advocacy spam", is considered vandalism. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Adding links advocating in favor of illegal aliens, especially if they also promote religion, is just what the edit summary said they are: advocacy spam. It is also not vandalism. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If somebody thinks certain links are inappropriate they have every right to remove them and not be called a vandal. Maybe it's ''you'' who needs to take a break. [[User:70.108.100.130|70.108.100.130]] 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

== Editorializing ==

[[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]. For this text to remain it needs to be cited from a reliable source, in which the controversy is described in these terms, and attributed to that source. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 03:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Moved from article:

: Who are the big losers in illegal immigration?
# The average taxpayer who has to subsidize the illegal immigration as well as live with the higher taxes, more crowded schools, emergency rooms, hospitals, highways, prisons and higher crime rate. According to census data the fraction of labor costs in the final finished product are: farm produce (6%), construction (20-50%), service industry (20%) and production (20%). Assuming that illegal immigration cuts these labor costs by 5-10% the savings to the consumer are very small (1-2% on these items only). The additional taxes needed to susidize these low income households overwhelm this savings.
# All low education workers as they have to compete with all the like wise low educated illegal immigration. The unemployment rate for high school dropouts is typically double that of non- high school dropouts. The wages of the lowest quintile of workers essentially hasn't improved in 20 years. The growing wage gap between low income and higher income workers is due in large part to the fact that the higher educated workers are getting ever higher salaries and the bottom wages have stagnated.
# Even bigger losers are native United States Hispanic and Black workers who have a larger percentage of less than high school educated workers who must compete against an increasing number of low cost illegal labor.
# The environment, of the projected 120-130 million increase in U.S. population by 2050, post-2000 immigrants legal and illegal and their descendants will account for two-thirds, given present trends. [http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/H2OSSPopGrowthCongr.html]
# Government at almost every level as it is bribed, corrupted or co-opted by illegal immigrant advocates to disregard the law.

Who are the big winners in illegal immigration?
# The illegal immigrant and his family although possible family separation tempers this.
# The businesses who hire them may be temporary winners as they get cheaper labor costs often without paying Social Security Insurance, un-employment insurance, workers comp, etc.
# Mexico, it gets to export its unemployment and under employment problems to the United States and gets up to $13-20 billion dollars remitted into its economy.
# The border smugglers (the "coyotes") and their associates on both sides of the border who take up to 90% of all illegal foot traffic (the "pollos" or chickens) across, deliver them to others in the U.S. who in turn deliver them to an employer or relatives for a fee. This business is lucrative and potentially deadly costing each illegal immigrant or his sponsor/family about $1,000 ea. Total business is variously estimated at $2 billion/year to $7-8 Billion (Ken Ellington, "Hard Line", pg. 85) second only to wage remissions in dollar volume.
# The illegal document forgers who are thought to operate muti billion dollar operations
# The labor contractors who often act as go betweens for some businesses and the illegal immigrants.
# Drug dealers,criminals who prey on the illegal immigrants or commit crimes in the U.S. and then run across the border, terrorists who all use the existing illegal immigrant flow to hide their own illegal forays across the border.

I admit I haven't had the time to more than skim these articles, but I would think I would have seen this at least in the headers, and so far, I haven't. I'm looking for any information on the health concerns that unregulated immigration poses, e.g. illegal immigrants entering the U.S. and then spreading tuberculosis (or other diseases that have been basically eradicated in the U.S. but not in nearby countries). I know that a few decades ago (not sure if it's still going on), incoming migrants were screened for serious diseases, which kept major diseases from spreading to those already in the United States. Since this sort of screening can't happen when people enter the country without going through the legal process, obviously it's a concern. So first, where is the article dealing with this, and second, are legitimate concerns about diseases and terrorists "not NPOV" and therefore not to be found on Wikipedia? It's clear that portions of the above removed text are inappropriate, but the financial burden of taxpayers is a legitimate concern and could be phrased more appropriately. (Then again, it's possible that I missed it in the article...I really need to reread this when my eyes aren't falling asleep.) [[User:Kilyle|Kilyle]] 07:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

::Mentioning that identified people are concerned about terrorism and disease wrt illegal aliens is NPOV. But it still needs to be properly attributed. Most of what was mentioned in the deleted part was not properly attributed and, thus, was editorializing. One issue did have proper reference - the ecological impact issue - and should probably be restored. I haven't done so yet because I'm not sure of the best way to do it. If you want to give it a shot, go ahead.[[User:198.97.67.59|198.97.67.59]] 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Ah, okay. I don't actually have time to hunt down sources at the moment, so I hope someone else will.

:::I will note: That illegal immigrants are not screened for diseases needs no source; it is obvious. The real or potential impact of unscreened diseases entering the country (e.g., cases of tuberculosis traced back to illegal immigrants) needs a source, though.

:::Also, that illegal immigrants receive services that they do not pay for, that are in fact paid for by "public funds" (that is, paid for by ''taxpayers''), that too may not need a specific source. Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Yet the public schools are required to provide education for children freely (whether they are in the country legally or not). This means that their children receive education paid for not by their families but by legal citizens who pay taxes. I'd also like to see a link to recent legislation (in California?) that grants reduced college tuition to illegal immigrants—and the amount of the tuition reduction is paid for by taxpayers.

:::I'm more hazy on the details of hospital/health care access. But anyway, that people are receiving free services and benefits while '''breaking the law'''—and that their lawbreaking is the only reason they are receiving such services—is a fact, and should not need a source (although I expect it could be phrased better). [[User:Kilyle|Kilyle]] 22:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

== Edits ==

I have attempted to cleanup obvious POV statements bt summarizing and attributing to sources. There is still much work to be done for this article to be considered compliant with Wikipedia content policies.
# Statements that are not supported by reliable sources need to be removed;
# Material that is supported by statements for advocates, both pro and con, need to be attributed to these and not asserted as fact;
# Unreliable sources such as blogs or personal pages should n0t be used.

This article needs to read as a neutral resource and not as a [[pamphlet]].
[[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved a group of external links attached to a POV sentence to the external links section. If editors want these back in the main article:
# Summarize, cite from these sources
# Attribute the POVs to these making them

[[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

==Keyes==
There is no dispute that Keyes is a Conservative, just that "Conservative" is a sloppy description of the POV of the web site which is already well defined with the descriptors I've already added. Its not redundant, its less than redundant it repeats the same data, only less of it. {{unsigned|198.97.67.56}}

== Unbalanced tag added ==

It is clear from the discussion and the edits that there is an "invasion" of this page by one point of view. I propose that we allow all points of view instead.

[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 23:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think that the tag is unnecessary. If you believe that the article is unbalanced, you need to explain what is missing from the article. If you assess that there is an "invasion", you need to explain what does means. Tags are not there to [[WP:POINT|make a point]], but to encourage a discussion and collaboration. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 00:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Thank you. I’m (slowly) learning the rules and etiquette and may have jumped into a topic for passionate people. But there is no question that this article presents an unbalanced point of view. This article presents the “anti” illegal point of view quite stridently but it is not balanced by a “pro” illegal point of view. I would prefer that the article be neutral; but if that is not possible, then lets have both (all?) camps represented.

::I have attempted some contributions towards making the article “more neutral” or “less inflammatory”. For example, I changed:
:::The policy of [[Posse Comitatus]] states that the military will not be used for domestic issues. Some argue that using the military to defend the country from invasion by illegal aliens is a violation of Posse Comitatus. According to former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard, these people are seemingly ignorant of the fact the army patrolled the border for more than 46 years after the passage of the Posse Comitatus act.
::to
:::The policy of [[Posse Comitatus]] states that the military will not be used for domestic issues. Some argue that using the military to aprehend illegal aliens is a violation of Posse Comitatus. Others, including former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard, argue that the army patrolled the border for more than 46 years after the passage of the Posse Comitatus act.
::In under 15 minutes it was back to the original wording. Notice that in the original wording one camp is presented as an officer of the US government and the other camp is “ignorant”. The person who “undid” my edit uses “defend the country from invasion” in a derogatory manner; and cowers under “see the M-W definition”. Well here it is (from the MW website0:
:::1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder; 2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

:: Notice “conquest and plunder” and “harmful”.

:: Maybe I need to change tactics and fight fire with fire and change from a small attempt at being neutral to a big attempt to be a radical extremist pro my own agenda. Sorry, feeble attempt at humor. Practical things: more citations from respected sources, less inflammatory language, more openness to the point of view of others (I do not want their point of view to go away, but mine should be give some space too). Maybe we can consider dividing the article in two: pro and con (??). I’ll continue to add a grain of sand; one day we’ll have a mountain. Thank you. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 17:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:Aye, Aye, Morlesg! [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and improve the article. the key to NPOV is to describe significant viewpoints without asserting them. See [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial]]. Happy editing. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Look at the entire definition of "invade". M-W states, "invade
1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE
3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE <doubts invade his mind> b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>
synonym see TRESPASS
- in·vad·er noun"
You claim that millions of foreigners illegally trespassing into this country is not the same as them invading it. Is it "plundering"? Again, using the same dictionary, "plundering" means "to make extensive use of as if by plundering : use or use up wrongfully". Are they using the resources of the country wrongfully? If they were using it "rightfully", they wouldn't be illegal. So, yes, millions of people are trespassing into this country to take from it wrongfully. Clearly when we are talking about several million people, we are talking about -extensive- use. The first definition is met. Are they encrouching upon the country? Once more, the dictionary states that "encroach" means "1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits". They are entering by stealth into the possessions or rights of another. They are advancing beyond the usual or proper limits (the national borders). Clearly the second definition is met. Are they spreading over into this country? There can be no debate on that point. The third definition is met. So, if all three definitions of the word are met, the word is accurate and, therefore, appropriate. Regarding Stoddard's comment, I'll see if we can replace the above with a quote.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry Anonymous. You express your point of view very vehemently, excellent. But you make my point: by using “invade” you are expressing a point of view that has no place in an encyclopedia. You are convinced “illegal aliens” are “plundering” and “abusing/encroaching” “by stealth”. You have a right to your opinion, but this is not the forum for this sort of discussion. Give me a break, do I have the same rights? Far as I know there are no Wikialiens (smile).[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I replaced the reference to Stoddard's comments with Stoddard's quote and an admin claimed it was against POV. I'm contesting him on that (he hasn't pointed out how, exactly, it is against POV and unless he does soon, I'll revert). To avoid a revert war, I'm waiting for a reply. But I just want to let you know that I am working towards a tighter reference on that point. I'm not skipping out on it.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

::::This isn't [[Wikiquote]]. It's the task of encyclopedia editors to summarize wherever possible. We cna say what the individual's POV is without quoting him at length. We should also make sure to include differing POVs as well. If we quoted a paragraph from every notable commentator the section would be too long. All we need to say is that some believe the use of military in this instance violates the Posse Comitatus while others do not. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think you need to review the policy on that. Its very clear. "Some people believe" is the kind of words which are discouraged. We should mention specific people and give specific reference. You say this isn't Wikiquote, but it sure isn't Wiki_say_whatever_I_want_and_make_vague_references_to_'some_people_saying_it' either.

::::::We can summarize an individual's position. Something like, "Some commentators, including a former border guard, believe that the Posse Comitatus does not apply." It's not that hard. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 21:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Wiki policy is to never delete information unless it is duplicate, redundant, irrelevant, patent nonsense, a copyright violation, or inaccurate (and note that redundant data must be judiciously weighed for deletion as redundancy as reducing redundancy increases inaccruacy). The content we are disputing meets none of those criteria.
Also, note that there is no policy against posting quotes. In fact, Wiki Policy states under reliable sources, "When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence, using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link. " Finally, note that your proposed alternative "some commentators.." would force the disputed content to use weasel words (which are against a Wiki guideline).
In short, the edits which have been done here by one administrator and those which have been further proposed by another administrator are in violation of three wiki guidelines and/or policies.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::''Wiki policy is to never delete information unless...'' Where does this policy appear? -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::See [[Wikipedia:Editing policy]] about half way down the page it states, "So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include: duplication, redundancy, irrelevancy, patent nonsense,
copyright violations, inaccuracy, or where the accuracy of the information cannot be established"[[User:198.97.67.56|198.97.67.56]] 11:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Not so fast, my friend. Your ''interpretation'' of these is out of whack. Yes, you can cite these as part of the citation format, but not on the body of the article (e.g. "using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link") . I would suggest that before you throw policy around, you learn the ropes first. It will save you and all involved editors a lot time and aggravation. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Where's the source of your quote above? Its not what I just wrote. What I wrote states clearly, "the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence". Take the entire quote as a whole and it is clear that "citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence, using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link" are listing four different options for putting the quote in the article. We can choose which of those four to use, but to not use any of them is against policy. If you are referencing another policy, point me to it. I want to read it in context.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

== External Links ==

I'm putting my effort behind my mouth! Changed external links section and created (suggested) some categories (did not erase any of the current links). Now (hopefully) we can all add links without the fear of getting them erased by the next contributor. Be bold! you said? [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:That's great, however pay attention to the policies regarding what is and what is not a good source. Adding poor sources can still result in having them deleted. Actually, any source can be deleted (this is an open community project after all), but poor sources will be deleted faster. So, aim for the best sources available and work towards creating a good article worthy of being in an encyclopedia.[[User:198.97.67.58|198.97.67.58]] 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

::Some of the external links have no description and so appear just a numbers. That isn't helpful at all. Regarding organized oppositon to illegal immigration in the U.S., we have a whole article on the topic, [[immigration reduction]], which contains a comprehensive list of links to such groups. We don't need to duplicate that info here. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Will. I take no credit for the links. I just cleaned them up. Didn't have time this morning to do all of them. Now it's done. You are absolutely right in that the "immigration reduction/limitation" camp is well represented; my concern is that there are many views on the subject of illegal immigration and all attempts at adding them to this article and all attempts at moderating the radical views expressed here are shot down in seconds. This article looks like a war zone. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 01:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:::My view is that all of the material in the immigration reduction article should be cleaned up and merged with this article.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

::::They are different topics, though there is some overlap. That article concerns the political movement, and is not limited to illegal immigration. The overarching topic is [[Immigration to the United States]] (which also contains a lengthy set of links). -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

== Citizenship granted by court ==

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

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

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

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

::"The term Anchor Baby is pejorative" may be relevant to whether the name of that article should be changed, but it isn't relevant to whether the content of that article (and of the relevant material in the 14th amendment article) should be combined with the same material in this article and ONE article created from it. "If the citezenship status of peoplo born un the USA (to illegal ot to legal resident parents) is a legal issue we must have a discussion in the artlicle" NOT true as is evidenced by the fact that we've already done the same thing with other content in the article.
Incidently, maintaining three different pages with the same content creates what is called a content fork (see [[Wikipedia:Content forking]]). From that page, "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject..content forks ..are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies."[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

== login 68.223.158.169 ==

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

Wow! Wasting way toooo much time here. It's me. Now I'm logged in[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 04:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

:unverifiable

::Dear Anon. Please revert this change. Here the source "according to the [Pew Hispanic Center] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. Further, by 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53]. If the numbers are down then the fear that illegas are "pouring over our borders" is unfounded. Thank you. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

this article isn't about legal immigration

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

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

:Please get a [[Special:Userlogin|username]], as your ISP is generating dymanic IP addresses and it is quite impossible to follow your edits. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

weasel words

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

unsourced

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

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

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

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

weasel words

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

no source

== Anon edits ==

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

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

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

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

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

:::::Among other things, it is forbiddden to use different IP addresses to avoid the 3RR. In order to bettre identify who is who, we may have to start identifying those IPs which appear to belong to a single user, and to come up with a name for that user. You can pick one yourself or we can do it. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::This user has been warned already several times about disruption related to this article:
:::::*Three times as [[User_Talk:71.74.209.82]]
:::::*Twice as [[User talk:198.97.67.58]]
:::::*Twice as [[User talk:198.97.67.57]]
::::: On this basis alone, this editor IP addresses may be blocked for disruption. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

::"Look 71.74.209.82, you have been warned seven times already about disruptive edits to this article." You tried an WP:RFFP calling me disruptive and it was immediately turned down. Now you are being petulent.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If at all, I would be petulant, not petulent. Nevertheless, VoiceofAll will hopefully review the situation, as it is clear now that you have engaged in disruptive behavior from at least three IP addresses. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::::No problems. I will place a request at [[WP:ANI]], so other admins can look at this issue. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

:You can use these templates to request a conversation about mergin articles:
:*{{tl|mergeto}} - add a <tt>{<nowiki>{mergeto|PRUCOL}}</nowiki></tt>, for example to the [[Anchor baby]] article
:*{{tl|mergefrom}} - add a <tt><nowiki>{{mergefrom|Anchor bab}}</nowiki></tt>, for example to the [[PRUCOL]] article
:Concerning your last edit, please summarize the Pew Hspanic report cite text you added rather that pasting full quotes. Yoy can have a full quote as a footnote. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

==Renew America==
The direct quote from Renew America in which it defines itself was replaced with something which I have no idea where it came from. Why replace a direct quote with something the editor seems to have made up?[[User:198.97.67.59|198.97.67.59]] 11:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you look at the edit summary, you will see where it comes from: the description metatag text of the website's home page. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
::And how is that suppossed to be sourced in the article?[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::By the use of {{tl|cite web}} [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

==Renew America copyright violation==
Currently we are using a full paragraph from the Renew America web site, specifically the article titled: Mexican government running US immigration policy--Part III[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713], last paragraph on the page. The over all article is approximately 1954 words in length, of which this article is using approximately 195 words, or 10% of the total article. 10% of someone else’s article is not fair use by any definition that I can find. Part of the text is used in - Illegal border crossing-, and the other part is used in - Use of military to patrol border-.

[[Wikipedia:Fair use]] lists for text: 

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

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

[[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 11:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:Please delete the offending text. Thanks for spotting it. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 15:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::Obviously it needs to be fixed. The problem is that, on one hand, we should quote people whenever discussing their position and on the other hand, we can't quote too much without risking copyright infringement. So, how much needs to be cut to avoid copytright infringement?[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:::You can summarize the quote in the body of the article and then link to a footnote in which a short quote can be added. That is, of course, if the quote is attributed to a notable/reliable source. See [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:CITE]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::::See [[fair use]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 23:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::According to that link, "it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy". The intent in this article was not to supersede the use of the orginal work or to substitute the review of it. So, there's no basis for saying that 10% is too much[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

==It follows that…==
This section is clearly violates Wikipedia’s policy on Original Research - [[Wikipedia:No original research]]:

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

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

The policy in a nut shell is stated as:

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

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

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

==Deletion of unsourced content==

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

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

has been deleted because it is unsourced[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 14:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

==ACLU position paper==
An [[ACLU]] position paper "The Rights of Immigrants" cites a study by the [[Urban Institute]] in which it is stated that immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services. <ref>ACLU, ''The Rights of Immigrants -ACLU Position Paper (9/8/2000)'', [http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11713pub20000908.html available online] "The Urban Institute has concluded that "immigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services." This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. In fact, immigrants pay substantially more in taxes every year than they receive in welfare benefits. "</ref>
That study [http://www.urban.org/Publications/411338.html] focused on Washington DC and, so, did not factor in the effect at the state and community level and focused on immigrants who are mostly wealthy and not illegal immigrants. It is not connected with the subject of this article.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:Not so (my highlights):
:*"The metropolitan area is relatively affluent and boasts a strong economy that attracts large numbers of immigrants for jobs '''at both the high- and low-skilled ends of the labor market'''"
:* "Troughout the report we refer to households headed by immigrants ('''whether citizens, legal immigrants, or unauthorized migrants''') as “immigrant households” and compare their incomes and tax payments to households headed by native-born U.S. citizens."

:You can add that the study was done in Washington DC, if so you wish. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

== PRUCOL ==

I removed the mention PRUCOL under "Citizenship and the children of immigrants". It had a [citation needed] for a few days an noboby provided support for the statement. 
According to the Department of Labor, in defining who is and isn't elegible for unemployment compensation they define PRUCOL as:
:Quote. The phrase "permanently residing in the United States under color of law" applies only to the following classes of aliens:

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

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

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

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

For more information see "UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 01-86, Change 1" (2/16/89)
[http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl86/uipl_0186c1.htm]. It has nothing to do with children born to undocumented workers.

[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 20:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-07T22:39:50Z

71.74.209.82: /* Illegal immigration economics */

{{mergeto|United States immigration debate}}

{{Cleanup-references}}
'''Illegal immigration to the United States''' refers to the migration of people across the [[border|national borders]] of the [[United States]] that is in violation of U.S. [[Immigration law|immigration]] and [[United States nationality law|nationality law]]. The terms ''illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented alien, undocumented immigrant'', and ''undocumented worker'', are common terms used to refer to persons residing in the United States without either U.S. [[citizenship]] or a valid immigration status. {{fn|1}}.
In the United States the term ‘’undocumented alien’’ typically refers to a foreign national who entered the country without valid travel documents or that overstayed the limited period of time granted upon entry. For example, a tourist who enters with a valid [B1 visa] and is granted a stay of 15 days and remains in-country for 30 days is an ‘’undocumented alien’’. The holder of a valid B1 (tourist) visa is barred from accepting employment. By accepting employment this hypothetical tourist becomes an ‘’undocumented worker’’ (whether he is an ‘’undocumented alien’’ or not). Not all ‘’undocumented aliens’’ are ‘’undocumented workers’’. For example, the visas overstay tourist who doesn’t work or the illegal crossing stay-at-home wife.
{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrants Info||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Education Profile||Number||Percent||
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Less then 12 yr.||align="right"|6,700,000||67.0%||
|-
!align="right"|High School||align="right"|3,000,000||30.0%||
|-
!align="right"|College Graduate||align="right"|300,000||3.0%||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Total Illegal Pop.||align="right"|12,000,000 ||Jan 2006||
|-
!align="right"|Total Working||align="right"|7,500,000
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Caught|| align="right"|202,842||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Deported|| align="right"|88,895||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Caught and Released|| align="right"|1,010,000+||2005||
|-
!align="right"|Illegal Immigrants/year|| align="right"|1,500,000+||Total||
|-
!align="right"|Voluntary returns/year||align="right"| - 200,000+||2005
|-
!align="right"|Change of Status/year||align="right"| - 600,000+||2005
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Net Increase/year||align="right"| 700,000+||Illegal Immigrants||
|-
|colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] A Description of the Immigrant Population [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2] 
|}

==Methods used to enter the U.S. illegally==
===Overview===
According to the 1997 report issued by the Binational Study on Migration and commissioned by the U.S. and Mexican governments,
* One-third or 2.3 to 2.4 million of the Mexican-born US residents are unauthorized, despite the legalization of two million unauthorized Mexicans in 1987-88, and subsequent legal immigration that unified their families.
*The total number of people from all countries who entered illegally or overstayed their visas in 1996 was estimated by the INS to be 275,000
*US sources suggest that the number of Mexican-born persons increased by two million between 1990 and 1996, and the binational study estimated that legal immigrants were the smallest part of the increase, 510,000, followed by unauthorized, 630,000, and then 760,000 SAWs and their family members. <ref>Migration News Vol. 13 No. 3, December 2006 [http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=1329_0_5_0 Migration News website] Retrieved Aug 2006</ref>

Three years later, in 2000, [[United States presidential election, 2000|US Presidential]] candidate [[Patrick Buchanan]] ([[Reform Party of the United States of America|Reform Party]]) asserted during an interview on [[National Public Radio]] that half a million people a year (a little less than double the figure the Binational Study stated)
are entering the USA illegally.<ref>Patrick Buchanan, National Public Radio interview, "Talk of the Nation", May 30, 2000). "Our levels of immigration now in the last 30 years have been enormous. It’s almost over a million legal immigrants a year, and half a million illegals who come here and stay." </ref>

According to the [[Pew Hispanic Center]] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. By 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. <ref>Rise, Peak and Decline: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004, Pew Hispanic Center [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53 Available online]</ref>

Another report of the Pew Hispanic center, cites that 45% of unauthorized migrants, had initially visas for limited amounts of time, bur over-stayed their visas, and that a small percentage of these entered the country from Mexico by means of a [[Border Crossing Card]]. <ref>Pew Hispanic Center, ''Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population '' (May 2006) [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]"As much as 45% of the total unauthorized migrant population entered the country with visas that allowed them to reside in the U.S. for a limited amount of time. Known as "overstayers", these migrants became part of the unauthorized population when they remained in the country after their visas had expired. Another small share of the unauthorized migrant population entered the country legally from Mexico using a Border Crossing Card, a document that allows short visits limited to the border region, and then violated the terms of admission. The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."</ref>

====Illegal border crossing====
{{sectNPOV}}
That same article goes on to state, "The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."
[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]
meaning that they crossed a border without passing possible criminal or health inspection or having a valid passport and [[Visa (document)|visa]] inspected by an immigration officer at a Port of Entry (POE). It is estimated that over a million people cross the border illegally each year, most of whom are of Mexican origin{fact}. The rest are labeled "Other Than Mexicans" (OTM), of whom a majority are [[Central America]]ns{fact}.

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a [[misdemeanor]] for the first offense and a [[felony]] for subsequent violations{{fact}}. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the future{{fact}}. Immigrants who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. [[H.R. 4437]] would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

According to a report by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary on 1997, "Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling."<ref>[ http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM ORDER SECURITY AND DETERRING ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary</ref>
Another large scale multi-million dollar criminal operations connected to illegal immigration is identity theft. [http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html]
The higher crime rates associated with all this traffic has led to extensive efforts on the part of individual sheriffs and communities trying to prevent further damage to their property and communities. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html], [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html], [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss], [[http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]

In 2006 the number of apprehensions on the border is almost the same as last year through 16 July 2006 at 936,000 [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20060722-9999-1n22crossers.html ]. However, according to many US Border Patrol agents, they were instructed by their leadership to "keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited" as one US Border Patrol agent put it [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm].
Some of the traffic has spread away from the dangerous Tucson districts deserts where over a hundred illegal immigrants have died so far this year compared to 153 in 2005. [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060722/images/border.pdf]

[[Image:ElPaso-Juarez-EO.JPG|thumb|right|200px|El Paso (top) and Ciudad Juárez (bottom) seen from earth orbit; the Rio Grande is the thin line separating the two cities through the middle of the photograph.]]
[[Image:TJ Border Beach.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Beach at Border Field State Park near [[San Ysidro, California]]. (Tire tracks from Border Patrol jeeps are visible on the beach.)]]

Border Patrol activity is concentrated around big border cities such as [[San Diego, California|San Diego]] and [[El Paso, Texas|El Paso]] which already have [[separation barriers]] and extensive Border Agent coverage. Each state in the United States has a [[United States National Guard|National Guard]] organization that could, in principal, be placed on the border at a state governor's discretion to assist with border security; many states also have a backup to the National Gurard called the [[State Defense Force]] that could, in an emergency, also be activated for this purpose. Arizona and New Mexico have currently declared the counties that border [[Mexico]] to be under serious duress caused by uncontrolled illegal immigrant traffic, thereby enabling governors to deploy National Guardsmen to the international border. Arizona has exercised this option but New Mexico has not.

In an article published by Renew America, a website which defines itself as a "Alan Keyes' website for grassroots activism -- designed to foster a nationwide movement to restore America to its founding ideals", former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard asserts that "The whole U.S.-Mexico border could be sealed with as few as 100 helicopters equipped with FLIR (forward looking infrared) scopes, and a few hundred men equipped with state of the art sensors, scopes and other electronics..." [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]

See also [[United States–Mexico border]], [[United States-Canada border]].

=====From countries with no visa agreements=====
Immigrants from nations that do not have automatic visa agreements, or who would not otherwise qualify for a visa, sometimes cross the borders illegally. Individuals from [[North Korea]], [[Libya]], [[Cuba]], [[Syria]], [[Sudan]], and [[Iran]] are required to submit to strict questioning from U.S. officials before their applications are processed. Their applications take longer to process than those for visitors and immigrants from other countries. [http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1300.html]

Often, these individuals enter from a land border using falsified documentation from a third country. For instance, [[Ahmed Ressam]], a member of [[Al Qaeda]], originally from [[Algeria]], entered [[Canada]] with a falsified [[France|French]] passport. Once in Canada, he procured a false Canadian passport to enter the United States. In the case of Cuba, the U.S. offers political asylum to many Cubans, but they first must reach U.S. soil. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//shows/trail/etc/fake.html]

====Visa or Border Crossing Card overstayers====

A visa overstayer is someone who has entered the United States legally and then illegally overstayed his or her visa or violated the restrictions on Border Crossing Card (BCC) or laser visa. Fraudulent and forged visa and BCC passes are included in this category. An estimated average 40-60% of all illegal immigrants to the U.S. entered this way. The number of overstayers varies considerably from country to country depending on the location of the country, the cultural, political, social and economic conditions in a given country in a given time. The PEW Hispanic institute reported [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf] that the INS had developed statistics that showed 3.2% of all Central and South America visas are overstayed. A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study gives estimates for all countries showing that China, India, Korea, and the Philippines had violation rates as high as 8%.[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] In general the poorer the country they came from the more likely the foreign visitor was to violate their visa.

GAO estimated that 40-60% of all Mexican illegal immigrants got here by violating their border crossing document's conditions. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] In operation Tarmac where ICE and DHS checked airport employees for legal employment they found 27% of the over 4900 violators found were visa or BCC violators. In one of the rare ICE check ups on a grocery chain they found that over 57% of the several hundred violators were visa overstayers or BCC violators ([http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf| Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered Defense]) patrol officials believe Visa violator numbers would increase if it became more difficult to illegally sneak across the border as illegal border crossers switched techniques. About 33% of all Central American illegal immigrants came by overstaying their visa with the rest traveling through Mexico to reach the border and then crossing illegally. At lest 95+% of all illegal South American, European, and Asians got here by overstaying their visa. (The other ~5% represent illegal immigrants smuggled by ship or plane) An increasing number of illegal immigrants are now flying to Mexico or Canada and then crossing the border illegally by foot or car. The ICE agents on the border report a 52% increase in border violators caught that are Other Than Mexican (OTM). The two main sources of illegal visa violators are Mexico and Canada which the U.S. has a large amount of cross border traffic with. Other estimates done by the GAO show that the overstayers and BCC violators from Mexico alone in the year 2001 may exceed 2,000,000 /year. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/border_crossing_entry_data/us_mexico/index.html] reported that in 2003 (the last year of available statistics) there were 79,000,000 and 245,000,000 border crossings between Canada and Mexico respectively and the US. The tourist bureau shows that there were less Mexicans (as reported by their government) doing all this traffic than their were Canadians (as reported by their government).[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] Mexico has roughly three times the population of Canada. The latest ICE statistics show that they captured 30,000 Brazilians after they crossed the U.S. Mexican border illegally for the first time in 2004. Two of the terrorists behind the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] were visa overstayers. The federal government historically has not extensibly checked up on visa holders once they are in the country; but visa checks has been used extensively after 9 September 2001 to check up on illegal immigrants from countries with large populations sympathic to terrorists. Several hundred visa violators were deported and several thousand more left voluntarily rather than face deportation hearings. {{fact}}

To help improve the lack of good information on visa overstayers the new US-VISIT program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States as well as requiring electronic readable passports containing this information. Information collected is checked against lookout databases to ensure that known or suspected terrorists, criminals, and previous U.S. immigration law violators are not admitted. [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-11_Feb05.pdf] and then checked against their eventual departure. US-VISIT entry procedures have been operational in the secondary inspection areas of the 50 busiest land border ports of entry since December 29, 2004, and are also in place at 115 airports and 15 seaports.[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4858] Early in 2007 the DHS is hoping to replace the laser visa or boundary crossing cards with People Access Security Service (PASS) card, as a secure identity document for people traveling to or from Canada or Mexico. [http://www.thebta.org/syndicate/news/archives/cat_us-visit.html] These would include Radio Frequency Identification Data (RFID) for ease of transit and security.

Visa overstayers violators tend to be somewhat more educated and be better off financially than those who walked crossed the border illegally. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0205/p01s03-usju.html] The financial and education status of the thousands of BCC or laser visa violators is unknown; but is probably very similar to the illegal border crossers who walked across since they both come from the same population base.

One common means of visa overstaying is coming to the U.S. on a student visa and not going to school or not leaving the country after finishing school. [http://ktla.trb.com/la-me-visa22may22,0,2677069.story?coll=ktla-home-3] The number of foreign students in the United States is over 600,000.

==Profile summaries of illegal immigrants==
<center>
{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"
!align=“center”! colspan=8 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Profile Summaries of Illegal Immigrants January 2006
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
||Job Category||% of Illegal Immigrant||% of Native -1 w/8+ yr sch.||% of Average Native||# Illegal Immigrant||# Native 8+ yr sch.||# Average Native
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Managerial / Self Employed||1.50%||5.9%||32.2%||108,000||758,000||33,810,000
|-
!align=“right”|Retail / Business||4.90%||15.2%||29.2%||352,800||1,952,700||30,660,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Private||1.20%||1.0%||0.3%||86,400||128,500||315,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farm Mgr||1.60%||1.6%||1.1%||115,200||205,600||1,155,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Retail||18.20%||20.3%||10.3%||1,310,400||2,607,900||10,815,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farming -2||17.50%||2.9%||1.0%||1,260,000||372,600||1,050,000
|-
!align=“right”|Production||22.0%||20.1%||11.9%||1,584,000||2,582,200||12,495,000
|-
!align=“right”|Construction||33.0%||33.1%||14.0%||2,376,000||4,252,400||14,700,000
|-
|||||||||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Total # Working||7,500,000||12,847,000||108,000,000||||||
|-
!align="right"|Labor rate of Participation -3||82%||46.3%||66.30%||||||
|-
!align="right"|Unemployment Rate||7.0%||7.0%||4.10%||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Country Profile||||||Sex / age Profile||||||Worker profile||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Mexican|| 6,840,000 ||57%||men 18-39||5,300,000||43.7%||align="right"|4,500,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Latin & Central Amer.|| align="right"|3,000,000 ||25%||women 18-39||align="right"|3,500,000 ||29.1%|| align="right"|2,000,000 ||60%
|-
!align="right"|Asia|| 1,080,000 ||9%||more than 40|| 1,300,000 ||10.7%||align="right"|1,000,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Europe + Canada|| 720,000 ||6%||less than 18||align="right"|2,040,000 ||17.0%||align="right"|200,000 ||10%
|-
!align="right"|Rest of World|| 480,000 ||4%||Born / yr.||align="right"|300,000||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Totals Jan 2006||12,100,000 ||||Total Pop.||12,400,000||Total Working||7,500,000
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / year||align="right"|700,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||See Note 7
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / Month||align="right"|60,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||
|-
|}
</center>

# Native Population that most closely matches Illegal immigrant population is workers that never graduated from high school.
# Farm work is the only job category that illegal immigrants uniquely fill; but it does have a 30,000 H2-A visa program for it!
# Rate of Participation is fraction of total population seeking work
# Average Education of illegal immigrants may be less if the ~30% Central American's are included.
# How many criminals turn around after deportation and return is unknown; but it is significant that ICE catchs more than they deport.
# Estimated number may be low by several hundred thousand
# Other estimates of net increase are over 850,000 illegal immigrants / year.

Information Sources:

*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population
*[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2]A Description of the Immigrant Population
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm] Labor Participation less than High School
* [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1204.html] Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't
*[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/AnnualReportEnforcement2004.pdf] Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2004
*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/16.pdf] The Labor Force Status of Short-Term Unauthorized Workers
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf] Labor Statistics

==Illegal immigration economics==
The economics of illegal immigration are a highly contentious issue with much conflicting information presented. In 1990 the Congress appointed a bipartisan [[Commission on Immigration Reform]] to review the nation's policies and laws and to recommend changes. Information about the commission and its reports are available at http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/. In turn, the commission in 1995 asked the National Research Council of the National Science Foundation to convene a panel of experts to assess the demographic, economic, and fiscal consequences of immigration. The panel was asked to lay a scientific

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Education, Income and Taxes||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||Asia||Latin America||Other||U.S. / CA
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align =“right”|Years of Education *||14.2||14.7||9.2||12+||14.4
|-
!align =“right”|Household Income *||$42k||$57k||$32k||$42k||42k
|-
!align =“right”|Effective Federal tax rate **||18.7%||22%||5%||18.7%||18.7%
|-
!align =“right”|Effective State tax rate ***||10%||12%||9%||10%||10.9%
|-
!align =“right”|Average Federal taxes ||$7.9k||$12.5k||$1.6k||$7.9k||$7.9k
|-
!align =“right”|Average State taxes||$4.2k||$6.8k||$2.9||$4.2k||$4.5k
|-
|colspan=6|<hr>

|-
|colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' * Census data [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/effect2004/effect2004.html] **Average federal tax data from CBO estimates of effective Federal tax rates [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] ***State taxes are from California Statistical Abstract [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/STAT-ABS/toc.htm] Note: Most of the Federal and state taxes are paid by households earning significantly more than average.

|}

foundation for policymaking on some specific Immigration issues. [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/1.html]
The panel consisted of over 15 well respected professors from highly ranked universities [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The National Science Foundation panels charge was to address three key questions:
# What is the effect of immigration on the future size and composition of the U.S. population?
# What is the influence of immigration on the overall economy?
# What is the fiscal impact of immigration on federal, state, and local governments?
The report by 15+ researchers was issued after 3 years study was called “The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration” (1997) Edited by James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, ISBN 0-309-06356-6. The book is available on line at [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The enclosed table summarizes some of the National Academy of Sciences main conclusions.

Previous studies (and many subsequent} of the fiscal impacts of immigration were found to have serious deficiencies. Indeed in 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available. Many of these represented not science but advocacy from both sides of the immigration debate. These studies often offered an incomplete accounting of either the full list of taxpayer costs and benefits by ignoring some programs and taxes while including others. More important, the conceptual foundation of this research was rarely explicitly stated, offering opportunities to tilt the research toward the desired result. [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/2.html]

'''"As long as there is a virtually unlimited supply of potential immigrants, the nation must make choices on how many to admit and who they should be."''' National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1997.

{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| National Science Foundation Immigrant Economics Federal State Local Net Annual Fiscal Impact per Household [1997]||
|-
| colspan=12|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||%||Asia||%||Latin America||%||Other||%||All||% ||Total Cost *
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>
|--
!align =“right”|California||$1,631||26%||$1,081||25%|| ($7,206)||43%||$3,313||6%||($2.206)||100%|| ($20.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449||26%||$2,022||25%|| ($5,625)||43%||$3,052||6%|| ($1,613)||100%|| ($15.0) billion 
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrant Economics **
|-
!align =“right”|California||$1,631 ||6%||$1,081 ||9%|| ($7,206)||81%||$3,313 ||4%|| ($5,509)||100%|| ($22.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449 ||6%||$2,022 ||9%|| ($5,625)||81%||$3,052 ||4%|| ($4,225)||100%|| ($17.0) billion 
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>

|-
|colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' ''The New Americans'', National Science Foundation Table 6.4, pg 284[http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/284.html] * Total costs calculated for all U.S. immigrants, legal and illegal, 9.166 million households 1995 ** No adjustments for changes since 1995, assumes 4 million illegal households, percent distribution from Pew 
|}

One study put the cost to the federal government at $2,700/household [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html] On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal government are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Still another study put the net costs to California residents at $433/household for European/Canadian immigrants, $1,240/household for Asian immigrants and $8,182/household for Latin American workers [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/161.html TABLE 4-7a Net Fiscal Impacts by Nativity of Householder] pg 160-1. These are the costs calculated for all immigrants legal and illegal. The costs for illegal immigrants are significantly higher since they have even less education, earn even less income and often avoid paying even the small taxes they are elgible for.

Madeleine Cosman contends that the requirement of hospitals to offer service to illegal aliens regardless of the alien's ability to pay has led to many hospitals running a deficit and being forced to close.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf] Also, free public education is extended to all children in the U.S. regardless of their citizen status. The matricula consular and passports are usually considered legal identification by many police agencies and governments.

Nearly all modern developed societies like Sweden, Canada and the United States heavily subsidize the cost of all government services for low income people by heavily taxing the higher income people. In the United states the effective federal tax rate considering all federal taxes as calculated by the Congressional Budget office runs from 4.8% for the bottom quintile [0-20%](avg. income = $34k) to 25% for the last quintile [80-100%] of income households. The bottom two income quintiles, with exemptions, are nearly exempt from all income tax and social security taxes are heavily subsidized. Many illegal workers claim they have income tax witheld not bothering to mention it is nearly always negligibly small.[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] The state's tax systems vary more but nearly always tax the higher income people much more than the lower income people.

According to an article that appeared in [[City Journal]], today's society, unlike the societies of 100 years ago when immigration previously peaked, will not see net gains for society by importing "a bunch of subsidized high school drop outs into it." <ref>Malanga, Steven, ''How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy'', City Journal (undated) [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html Available online]</ref>. An oppsing view is prsented in an [[ACLU]] position paper "The Rights of Immigrants" cites a study by the [[Urban Institute]] in which it is stated that immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services. <ref>ACLU, ''The Rights of Immigrants -ACLU Position Paper (9/8/2000)'', [http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11713pub20000908.html available online] "The Urban Institute has concluded that 'immigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services.' This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. In fact, immigrants pay substantially more in taxes every year than they receive in welfare benefits. "</ref> This source of this difference between the City Journal article and the ACLU position paper is clear, though, upon closer inspection. The Urban Institute study which the ACLU paper references focuses on Washington DC. Immigration in DC is not representative of the rest of the nation. It has no state and, so, has no cost incurred to that state, and its immigrants tend to be politicians and political consultants. Most immigrants (let alone illegal immigrants) in the nation are not so highly skilled.

* George Borgas of the [[University of California, San Diego]] and the National Bureau of Economic Research says that much of the impact of immigration on wages and unemployment is difficult to determine. <ref>Borjas, G.J. "The economics of immigration," Journal of Economic Literature, v 32 (1994), pp. 1667-717. "If we could observe a number of closed labor markets which immigrants penetrate randomly, we can then relate the change in the wage of skilled and unskilled workers to the proportion of immigrants in the population (after adjusting for the skill composition of both the native population and the immigrant flow). The estimated parameters would summarize the impact on immigrants on native employment opportunities." </ref> He goes on to state that most studies on the economic impact of immigration are framed use this approach and that this approach requires a ''closed'' labor market. Illegal immigration destroys any such closure making it extremely risky to apply studies on the economic impact of immigration to the issue of the economic impact of illegal immigration.

* In an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal (1994), Richard K. Vedder, Professor of Economics at the Ohio University, states that his study found no statistically meaningful relationship between immigration and unemployment and that if such a relationship exists, it appears to work in the opposite direction. <ref>Vedder, Richard K. ''Immigration Doesn’t Displace Natives'', March 28, 1994, [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?ID=269 Available online] "Using several different periods and approaches, we consistently found no statistically meaningful relationship between immigration and unemployment. However, if there is any correlation, it would appear to be negative: Higher immigration is associated with lower unemployment." </ref> He goes on to postulate that immigrants work harder for cheaper wages than citizens.

*Studies by the Rand Corporation came to the conclusion that immigrants do not have a negative effect on the earnings and the employment opportunities of native-born Americans. <ref>McCarthy, Kevin F., Vernez, Georges, ''Immigration in a Changing Economy'', Rand Corporation (1997), ISBN 0-8330-2496-5</ref>

* An article by Leon F. Bouvier from the [[Center for Immigration Studies]] (which generally supports more restrictive immigration policies), cites studies by two authoritative US agencies, the [[Council of Economic Advisors]] and the [[Department of Labor]] that supports the assertion that immigration does not cause job displacement. <ref> Bouvier, Leon F. , ''Immigration and Looser Labor Markets: Unemployment Outlook in Major Immigrant-Receiving Areas'', December 1990. [http://www.cis.org/articles/1990/dec90.html Available online] "The idea that immigration does not cause job displacement has been aggressively argued by many economists during the 19805, and supported by two authoritative U.S. agencies, the Council of Economic Advisors and the Department of labor."</ref>.

==2004 illegal immigration debate==
{{main|United States immigration debate}}
In 2004, [[United States]] [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] proposed a [[guest worker]] program to absorb migrant laborers who would otherwise come to the U.S. as [[illegal alien]]s. However, the details were left to legislators. In 2005, the [[United States Congress|Congress]] began creating legislation to change the current [[illegal immigration]] policies. The legislation approved by the U.S. [[House of Representatives]] led to massive protests.

See also [[2006 United States immigration reform protests]].

==Legal issues==

===Legal and political status===

===Citizenship and the children of immigrants===
Before passage of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], in 1865 after the conclusion of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], the United States commonly granted citizenship on the basis of [[jus soli]]. The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to protect newly emancipated [[freedmen|former slaves]], and in keeping with the jus soli tradition of the Republic has been interpreted by the [[United States Supreme Court]], in precedent set by ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'' in 1898, to cover everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents, with the exception of the children of diplomats. The decision in ''Wong Kim Ark'' upheld the ''jus soli'' which had often been practiced before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In short, the Court found that the 14th Amendment re-affirmed ''jus soli''. ''Wong Kim Ark'' did not overturn or weaken ''Elk v. Wilkins''; it simply defined ''jus soli''. The Court found that Wong Kim Ark, having been born to Chinese citizens, who were lawfully residing within the United States, and with the intention of amicably obeying its laws, was a citizen of the United States. Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly not''' citizens:
* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Children born to [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the [[Indian Citizenship Act of 1924]])
The following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly''' citizens:
* Children born to US citizens
* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people, and obeying its laws.

Under these rulings, the citizenship status of the U.S.-born children of [[illegal immigrant]]s is in the same gray area as people born in foreign countries of foreign parents - that is, neither ruling explicitly denies or grants them citizenship. Various aspects of both ''Elk v. Wilkins'' and ''Wong Kim Ark'' lend reasoning that such children are not US citizens. ''Wong Kim Ark'' is often cited as granting the children of illegal aliens US citizenship, but the ruling is explicit in that it applies to the children of aliens who are legally within the United States. Some may even argue that it implicitly denies them citizenship by doing so. However, in terms of Supreme Court rulings, or the rulings of any court, implicit is meaningless. The ''status quo'' is that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens, and it will remain that way until government policy changes or is challenged, and the Supreme Court inevitably makes an explicit ruling.

Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a [[constitutional amendment]]. The proposed changes are usually one of the following:
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or [[permanent resident]] (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States (requires an Act of Congress, probably challenged to the Supreme Court).

Representative [[Nathan Deal]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] of [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], introduced legislation in [[2005]] to assert that U.S.-born children are only "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (and therefore eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment) if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Similarly, Representative [[Ron Paul]] of [[Texas]] has introduced a constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Neither of these measures has come to a vote. Even if Rep. Deal's legislation were passed by Congress, it would likely be struck down by the courts based on the precedent established in ''U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark'', which allows for the US born children of lawful visitors to be citizens as well. The issue remains controversial, reflecting both tensions about immigration and disputes about the appropriate balance of power between the courts and the Congress.

Children of families where at least one parent is an illegal immigrant are sometimes referred to as ''[[Anchor baby|anchor babies]]'' because once the illegal family's mother gives birth to the baby inside the U.S., the baby is said to "anchor" them to the U.S.. Legally the illegal parent or parents can still be deported so the anchor is more perceived than real. However, some illegal immigrant advocates and some of the children with parents of mixed legal immigration status feel the term "Anchor Baby" is [[pejorative]].

===Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986===
The [[Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]] (IRCA) made the hiring of an individual without documents an offense for the first time. Enforcement has been lax, but major businesses have often been found to use illegal immigrants. The act is somewhat redundant since the forging of government documents (fake immigration documents or providing falsified social security numbers) is already a felony, and for most companies such documents must be provided to the government in its tax filings. However, the government does not notify those whose identities have been stolen for the falsified social security numbers, thus making it difficult to estimate the extent of the problem. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/]

===Legal cases===
Some major companies have been accused of hiring undocumented workers.

* [[Tyson Foods]] was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its [[chicken]] packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee acquitted the company after evidence was presented that [[Tyson Foods]] went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.
* [[Wal-Mart]] was convicted of using illegal sub contracted [[janitor|janitorial]] workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge or permission.
* [[Philippe Kahn]], who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company [[Borland International]] without ever getting [[United States Permanent Resident Card|proper legal status]].

===Use of military to defend border===
See [[United States immigration debate]]

===Immigration with and without quotas===
The immigration quota system was first expanded with the [[Emergency Quota Act]] of 1921 which was used to reduce the influx of East and Southern European immigrants who were coming to the country in large numbers from the turn of the century. This immigration was further reduced by the [[Immigration Act of 1924]] which was structured to maintain the cultural and ethnic traditions of the United States.

There has never been a quota for Jews or any other religious group, only for people from specific countries. The waiting list for the few available immigration spots grew enormously in the 1930s in the U.S. and throughout the free world that was accepting any immigration. In the 1930's the number of Jewish immigrant applicants seeking visa to the U.S. alone exceeded the quota for all of Germany. [[Adolf Hitler]] started his [[Holocast]] program in the 1930's that ultimately led to the death of over 10,000,000 people including 6,000,000 Jews. The [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] administration had nearly shut down immigration during the decade of the [[Great Depression of 1929]]. In 1929 there were 279,678 immigrants recorded and in 1933 there were only 23,068 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. By 1939 recorded immigrants had crept back up to 82,998 but then the advent of World War II drove it back down to 23,725 in 1943 increasing slowly to 38,119 by 1945 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. After 1946 about 600,000 of Europe's Displaced Person (DP's) refugees were admitted under special laws outside the country quotas, and in the 1960s and 1970s large numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/] were admitted under special laws outside all quotas. Congress passed the [[Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965]] which esssentially removed all nation-specific quotas, while retaining an overall quota, and included immigrants from Mexico and the Western Hemisphere for the first time with their own quotas. It also put a large part of immigration, so-called family reunification, outside the quota system. This dramatically changed the number, type and composition of the new arrivals from mostly European, to predominantly poor [[Latino]] and [[Asian]]. It also dramatically increased the number of illegal immigrants as many poorer people now had family or friends in the U.S. that attracted them there. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] In 1986, the [[Immigration Reform and Control Act]] (IRCA) was passed, creating amnesty for about 3,000,000 illegal immigrants already in the United States. Critics believe IRCA just intensified the illegal immigration flow as those granted amnesty illegally brought more of their friends and family into the U.S.. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

Without quotas on large segments of the immigration flow, legal immigration to the U.S. surged and soon became largely family based "Chain immigration" where familys brought in a never ending chain of off quota new immigrant family members. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States are now at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000. Net Illegal immigration has also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970's, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980's to over 500,000 per year in the 1990's to over 700,000 per year in the 2000's. Total illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf], [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html])

See also:[[Immigration to the United States]]

===Other===
There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics.
* During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents.
* [[Linda Chavez]], [[Zoe Baird]] and [[Tom Tancredo]] are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "[[Nannygate]]". In Tancredo's case, a home contractor allegedly hired illegal aliens.

==Historical context==
Every wave of immigration into the United States has faced fear and hostility, especially during times of economic hardship, political turmoil, or war: in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, one of our nation's first immigration laws, to keep out all people of Chinese origin; during the "Red Scare" of the 1920s, thousands of foreign-born people suspected of political radicalism were arrested and brutalized; many were deported without a hearing; and in 1942, 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned in camps until the end of World War II.
===Chinese experience===
In 1882 the [[Chinese Exclusion Act (United States)|Chinese Exclusion Act]] had cut off nearly all [[China|Chinese]] immigration. The first laws creating a [[quota]] for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers. Ngai (2003) shows that the new laws were the beginning of mass illegal immigration, because they created a new class of persons - illegal aliens - whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility. This contradiction challenged received notions of sovereignty and democracy in several ways. First, the increase in the number of illegal entries created a new emphasis on control of the nation's borders - especially the long Canadian border. Second, the application of the deportation laws gave rise to an oppositional political and legal discourse, which imagined "deserving" and "undeserving" illegal immigrants and, therefore, just and unjust deportations. These categories were constructed out of modern ideas about crime, sexual morality, the family, and race. In the 1930s federal deportation policy became the object of legal reform to allow for administrative discretion in deportation cases. Just as restriction and deportation "made" illegal aliens, administrative discretion "unmade" illegal aliens. Administrative law reform became an unlikely site where problems of national belonging and inclusion played out.

===History of border security===
For a period of time in the 1990s U.S. Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal aliens and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR infrared devices, and helicopters. In conjunction with the U.S. Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. Sher Zieve claims this was very effective but temporary as the illegal traffic resumed as soon as the military withdrew.[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]. After the [[September 11, 2001 attack]]s the United States looked at the feasibility of placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure. [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4018573.html]], [http://newsfromtheborder.blogspot.com/2006/07/del-rio-border-influx-drops.html], [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/national-guard-presence-cutting-number.php]

In December, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to build a [[separation barrier]] along parts of the border not already protected by a separation barriers. A later vote in the [[United States Senate]] on [[May 17]], [[2006]], included a plan to blockade 860 miles of the border with vehicle barriers and triple-layer fencing along with granting amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and roughly doubling legal immigration. [[Bay Buchanan]], head of [[Team America]], an [[immigration reduction]] [[political action committee]], estimated that it would take less than six months to build a 2,000 mile, triple-layer fence and would cost roughly $1.5 - 3 billion. On the same show, Buchanan claimed that the 1990s-era border security program [[Operation Gatekeeper]] cut down unauthorized immigration by 90%. The actual numbers are not quite that high with 565,581 apprehensions in San Diego district in fiscal year 1992 before Operation Gatekeeper and its enhanced border fencing and policing to a low of 100,681 apprehensions in in 2002--an 82% reduction. Apprehensions in 2006 are at 138,608 or a 75% reduction. [http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/news/SDUT-4-16-06.pdf]
Apprehensions have gone up in other areas as border security was enhanced in San Diego and El Paso which saw a similar drop in apprehensions.

==References==
<references />

==Further reading==
* Barkan, Elliott R. "Return of the Nativists? California Public Opinion and Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s." ''Social Science History'' 2003 27(2): 229-283. in Project Muse
* Cull, Nicholas J. and Carrasco, Davíd, ed. ''Alambrista and the US-Mexico Border: Film, Music, and Stories of Undocumented Immigrants'' U. of New Mexico Press, 2004. 225 pp.
* Thomas J. Espenshade; "Unauthorized Immigration to the United States" ''Annual Review of Sociology''. Volume: 21. 1995. pp 195+.
* Flores, William V. "New Citizens, New Rights: Undocumented Immigrants and Latino Cultural Citizenship" ''Latin American Perspectives'' 2003 30(2): 87-100
* Lisa Magaña, ''Straddling the Border: Immigration Policy and the INS'' (2003
* Mohl, Raymond A. "Latinization in the Heart of Dixie: Hispanics in Late-twentieth-century Alabama" ''Alabama Review'' 2002 55(4): 243-274. Issn: 0002-4341
* Ngai, Mae M. ''Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America'' (2004),
* Ngai, Mae M. "The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921-1965" ''Law and History Review'' 2003 21(1): 69-107. Issn: 0738-2480 Fulltext in History Cooperative

== See also ==
* [[Immigration reduction]]
* [[United States immigration debate]]
* [[Free immigration]]
* [[History of US immigration]]
* [[Immigrant deaths along the United States Border]]
* [[Migra]]
* [[Nativism]]
* [[NumbersUSA]]
* [[H-1B visa]]
* [[Mara Salvatrucha]]
* [[Minuteman Project]]
* [[S. 2611]]

== Footnotes ==
{{fnb|1}}The [[Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS) defines unauthorized immigrants as “foreign-born persons who entered without inspection or who violated the terms of a temporary admission and who have not acquired Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status or gained temporary protection against removal by applying for an immigration benefit. For example, the following foreign-born persons are not considered to be unauthorized residents in these estimates: refugees, asylees, and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and aliens who are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings. [[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf]]

{{fnb|2}}The [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] and the [[U.S. Border Patrol]] use ''illegal alien'' as their preferred term.
When the term ''undocumented worker'' is used, it generally encompasses all people who enter without documents, including children, the elderly, and those who do not work. The term ''illegal immigrant'' is the preferred language of the [[AP Stylebook]].

==External links==
===News Coverage===
* [[Orange County Register]]: “ 'Visa overstayers' fuel illegal population” - April 5, 2006 [http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1087193.php]
* [[USA Today]]: Text of President Bush's Immigration Law Reform Speech on May 16, 2006 [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-15-bush-speech-text_x.htm?csp=34]
* [[CNN]]: Reaction to Bush immigration speech - May 15, 2006 [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration.reax/index.html]
* [[Miami Herald]]: “No human being is `illegal” – May 24, 2006 [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14652801.htm]
* [[Washington Post]]: “One Sheriff sees immigration answer as simple – May 20, 2006 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]
* [[Associated Press]]: “Ariz. Posse to Arrest Illegal Immigrants” –May 4, 2006 [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html]
* [[NY Times]] “Arizona County Uses New Law to Look for Illegal Immigrants” –May 9, 2006 [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]
* [[City Journal]] “How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy” –no date [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] A publication of [[The Manhattan Institute]]

===Others===
*Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS22026.pdf] a report of the [[Congressional Research Service]] (January 13, 2005) provided by the [[Federation of American Scientists]].

[[Category:Immigration law]]
[[Category:Immigration to the United States]]
[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Legal categories of people]]

[[es:Inmigración ilegal]]

Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-07T22:35:40Z

71.74.209.82: /* Contrasting views */

{{mergeto|United States immigration debate}}

{{Cleanup-references}}
'''Illegal immigration to the United States''' refers to the migration of people across the [[border|national borders]] of the [[United States]] that is in violation of U.S. [[Immigration law|immigration]] and [[United States nationality law|nationality law]]. The terms ''illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented alien, undocumented immigrant'', and ''undocumented worker'', are common terms used to refer to persons residing in the United States without either U.S. [[citizenship]] or a valid immigration status. {{fn|1}}.
In the United States the term ‘’undocumented alien’’ typically refers to a foreign national who entered the country without valid travel documents or that overstayed the limited period of time granted upon entry. For example, a tourist who enters with a valid [B1 visa] and is granted a stay of 15 days and remains in-country for 30 days is an ‘’undocumented alien’’. The holder of a valid B1 (tourist) visa is barred from accepting employment. By accepting employment this hypothetical tourist becomes an ‘’undocumented worker’’ (whether he is an ‘’undocumented alien’’ or not). Not all ‘’undocumented aliens’’ are ‘’undocumented workers’’. For example, the visas overstay tourist who doesn’t work or the illegal crossing stay-at-home wife.
{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrants Info||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Education Profile||Number||Percent||
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Less then 12 yr.||align="right"|6,700,000||67.0%||
|-
!align="right"|High School||align="right"|3,000,000||30.0%||
|-
!align="right"|College Graduate||align="right"|300,000||3.0%||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Total Illegal Pop.||align="right"|12,000,000 ||Jan 2006||
|-
!align="right"|Total Working||align="right"|7,500,000
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Caught|| align="right"|202,842||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Deported|| align="right"|88,895||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Caught and Released|| align="right"|1,010,000+||2005||
|-
!align="right"|Illegal Immigrants/year|| align="right"|1,500,000+||Total||
|-
!align="right"|Voluntary returns/year||align="right"| - 200,000+||2005
|-
!align="right"|Change of Status/year||align="right"| - 600,000+||2005
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Net Increase/year||align="right"| 700,000+||Illegal Immigrants||
|-
|colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] A Description of the Immigrant Population [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2] 
|}

==Methods used to enter the U.S. illegally==
===Overview===
According to the 1997 report issued by the Binational Study on Migration and commissioned by the U.S. and Mexican governments,
* One-third or 2.3 to 2.4 million of the Mexican-born US residents are unauthorized, despite the legalization of two million unauthorized Mexicans in 1987-88, and subsequent legal immigration that unified their families.
*The total number of people from all countries who entered illegally or overstayed their visas in 1996 was estimated by the INS to be 275,000
*US sources suggest that the number of Mexican-born persons increased by two million between 1990 and 1996, and the binational study estimated that legal immigrants were the smallest part of the increase, 510,000, followed by unauthorized, 630,000, and then 760,000 SAWs and their family members. <ref>Migration News Vol. 13 No. 3, December 2006 [http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=1329_0_5_0 Migration News website] Retrieved Aug 2006</ref>

Three years later, in 2000, [[United States presidential election, 2000|US Presidential]] candidate [[Patrick Buchanan]] ([[Reform Party of the United States of America|Reform Party]]) asserted during an interview on [[National Public Radio]] that half a million people a year (a little less than double the figure the Binational Study stated)
are entering the USA illegally.<ref>Patrick Buchanan, National Public Radio interview, "Talk of the Nation", May 30, 2000). "Our levels of immigration now in the last 30 years have been enormous. It’s almost over a million legal immigrants a year, and half a million illegals who come here and stay." </ref>

According to the [[Pew Hispanic Center]] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. By 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. <ref>Rise, Peak and Decline: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004, Pew Hispanic Center [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53 Available online]</ref>

Another report of the Pew Hispanic center, cites that 45% of unauthorized migrants, had initially visas for limited amounts of time, bur over-stayed their visas, and that a small percentage of these entered the country from Mexico by means of a [[Border Crossing Card]]. <ref>Pew Hispanic Center, ''Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population '' (May 2006) [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]"As much as 45% of the total unauthorized migrant population entered the country with visas that allowed them to reside in the U.S. for a limited amount of time. Known as "overstayers", these migrants became part of the unauthorized population when they remained in the country after their visas had expired. Another small share of the unauthorized migrant population entered the country legally from Mexico using a Border Crossing Card, a document that allows short visits limited to the border region, and then violated the terms of admission. The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."</ref>

====Illegal border crossing====
{{sectNPOV}}
That same article goes on to state, "The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."
[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]
meaning that they crossed a border without passing possible criminal or health inspection or having a valid passport and [[Visa (document)|visa]] inspected by an immigration officer at a Port of Entry (POE). It is estimated that over a million people cross the border illegally each year, most of whom are of Mexican origin{fact}. The rest are labeled "Other Than Mexicans" (OTM), of whom a majority are [[Central America]]ns{fact}.

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a [[misdemeanor]] for the first offense and a [[felony]] for subsequent violations{{fact}}. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the future{{fact}}. Immigrants who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. [[H.R. 4437]] would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

According to a report by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary on 1997, "Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling."<ref>[ http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM ORDER SECURITY AND DETERRING ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary</ref>
Another large scale multi-million dollar criminal operations connected to illegal immigration is identity theft. [http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html]
The higher crime rates associated with all this traffic has led to extensive efforts on the part of individual sheriffs and communities trying to prevent further damage to their property and communities. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html], [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html], [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss], [[http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]

In 2006 the number of apprehensions on the border is almost the same as last year through 16 July 2006 at 936,000 [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20060722-9999-1n22crossers.html ]. However, according to many US Border Patrol agents, they were instructed by their leadership to "keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited" as one US Border Patrol agent put it [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm].
Some of the traffic has spread away from the dangerous Tucson districts deserts where over a hundred illegal immigrants have died so far this year compared to 153 in 2005. [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060722/images/border.pdf]

[[Image:ElPaso-Juarez-EO.JPG|thumb|right|200px|El Paso (top) and Ciudad Juárez (bottom) seen from earth orbit; the Rio Grande is the thin line separating the two cities through the middle of the photograph.]]
[[Image:TJ Border Beach.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Beach at Border Field State Park near [[San Ysidro, California]]. (Tire tracks from Border Patrol jeeps are visible on the beach.)]]

Border Patrol activity is concentrated around big border cities such as [[San Diego, California|San Diego]] and [[El Paso, Texas|El Paso]] which already have [[separation barriers]] and extensive Border Agent coverage. Each state in the United States has a [[United States National Guard|National Guard]] organization that could, in principal, be placed on the border at a state governor's discretion to assist with border security; many states also have a backup to the National Gurard called the [[State Defense Force]] that could, in an emergency, also be activated for this purpose. Arizona and New Mexico have currently declared the counties that border [[Mexico]] to be under serious duress caused by uncontrolled illegal immigrant traffic, thereby enabling governors to deploy National Guardsmen to the international border. Arizona has exercised this option but New Mexico has not.

In an article published by Renew America, a website which defines itself as a "Alan Keyes' website for grassroots activism -- designed to foster a nationwide movement to restore America to its founding ideals", former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard asserts that "The whole U.S.-Mexico border could be sealed with as few as 100 helicopters equipped with FLIR (forward looking infrared) scopes, and a few hundred men equipped with state of the art sensors, scopes and other electronics..." [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]

See also [[United States–Mexico border]], [[United States-Canada border]].

=====From countries with no visa agreements=====
Immigrants from nations that do not have automatic visa agreements, or who would not otherwise qualify for a visa, sometimes cross the borders illegally. Individuals from [[North Korea]], [[Libya]], [[Cuba]], [[Syria]], [[Sudan]], and [[Iran]] are required to submit to strict questioning from U.S. officials before their applications are processed. Their applications take longer to process than those for visitors and immigrants from other countries. [http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1300.html]

Often, these individuals enter from a land border using falsified documentation from a third country. For instance, [[Ahmed Ressam]], a member of [[Al Qaeda]], originally from [[Algeria]], entered [[Canada]] with a falsified [[France|French]] passport. Once in Canada, he procured a false Canadian passport to enter the United States. In the case of Cuba, the U.S. offers political asylum to many Cubans, but they first must reach U.S. soil. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//shows/trail/etc/fake.html]

====Visa or Border Crossing Card overstayers====

A visa overstayer is someone who has entered the United States legally and then illegally overstayed his or her visa or violated the restrictions on Border Crossing Card (BCC) or laser visa. Fraudulent and forged visa and BCC passes are included in this category. An estimated average 40-60% of all illegal immigrants to the U.S. entered this way. The number of overstayers varies considerably from country to country depending on the location of the country, the cultural, political, social and economic conditions in a given country in a given time. The PEW Hispanic institute reported [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf] that the INS had developed statistics that showed 3.2% of all Central and South America visas are overstayed. A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study gives estimates for all countries showing that China, India, Korea, and the Philippines had violation rates as high as 8%.[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] In general the poorer the country they came from the more likely the foreign visitor was to violate their visa.

GAO estimated that 40-60% of all Mexican illegal immigrants got here by violating their border crossing document's conditions. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] In operation Tarmac where ICE and DHS checked airport employees for legal employment they found 27% of the over 4900 violators found were visa or BCC violators. In one of the rare ICE check ups on a grocery chain they found that over 57% of the several hundred violators were visa overstayers or BCC violators ([http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf| Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered Defense]) patrol officials believe Visa violator numbers would increase if it became more difficult to illegally sneak across the border as illegal border crossers switched techniques. About 33% of all Central American illegal immigrants came by overstaying their visa with the rest traveling through Mexico to reach the border and then crossing illegally. At lest 95+% of all illegal South American, European, and Asians got here by overstaying their visa. (The other ~5% represent illegal immigrants smuggled by ship or plane) An increasing number of illegal immigrants are now flying to Mexico or Canada and then crossing the border illegally by foot or car. The ICE agents on the border report a 52% increase in border violators caught that are Other Than Mexican (OTM). The two main sources of illegal visa violators are Mexico and Canada which the U.S. has a large amount of cross border traffic with. Other estimates done by the GAO show that the overstayers and BCC violators from Mexico alone in the year 2001 may exceed 2,000,000 /year. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/border_crossing_entry_data/us_mexico/index.html] reported that in 2003 (the last year of available statistics) there were 79,000,000 and 245,000,000 border crossings between Canada and Mexico respectively and the US. The tourist bureau shows that there were less Mexicans (as reported by their government) doing all this traffic than their were Canadians (as reported by their government).[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] Mexico has roughly three times the population of Canada. The latest ICE statistics show that they captured 30,000 Brazilians after they crossed the U.S. Mexican border illegally for the first time in 2004. Two of the terrorists behind the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] were visa overstayers. The federal government historically has not extensibly checked up on visa holders once they are in the country; but visa checks has been used extensively after 9 September 2001 to check up on illegal immigrants from countries with large populations sympathic to terrorists. Several hundred visa violators were deported and several thousand more left voluntarily rather than face deportation hearings. {{fact}}

To help improve the lack of good information on visa overstayers the new US-VISIT program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States as well as requiring electronic readable passports containing this information. Information collected is checked against lookout databases to ensure that known or suspected terrorists, criminals, and previous U.S. immigration law violators are not admitted. [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-11_Feb05.pdf] and then checked against their eventual departure. US-VISIT entry procedures have been operational in the secondary inspection areas of the 50 busiest land border ports of entry since December 29, 2004, and are also in place at 115 airports and 15 seaports.[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4858] Early in 2007 the DHS is hoping to replace the laser visa or boundary crossing cards with People Access Security Service (PASS) card, as a secure identity document for people traveling to or from Canada or Mexico. [http://www.thebta.org/syndicate/news/archives/cat_us-visit.html] These would include Radio Frequency Identification Data (RFID) for ease of transit and security.

Visa overstayers violators tend to be somewhat more educated and be better off financially than those who walked crossed the border illegally. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0205/p01s03-usju.html] The financial and education status of the thousands of BCC or laser visa violators is unknown; but is probably very similar to the illegal border crossers who walked across since they both come from the same population base.

One common means of visa overstaying is coming to the U.S. on a student visa and not going to school or not leaving the country after finishing school. [http://ktla.trb.com/la-me-visa22may22,0,2677069.story?coll=ktla-home-3] The number of foreign students in the United States is over 600,000.

==Profile summaries of illegal immigrants==
<center>
{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"
!align=“center”! colspan=8 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Profile Summaries of Illegal Immigrants January 2006
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
||Job Category||% of Illegal Immigrant||% of Native -1 w/8+ yr sch.||% of Average Native||# Illegal Immigrant||# Native 8+ yr sch.||# Average Native
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Managerial / Self Employed||1.50%||5.9%||32.2%||108,000||758,000||33,810,000
|-
!align=“right”|Retail / Business||4.90%||15.2%||29.2%||352,800||1,952,700||30,660,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Private||1.20%||1.0%||0.3%||86,400||128,500||315,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farm Mgr||1.60%||1.6%||1.1%||115,200||205,600||1,155,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Retail||18.20%||20.3%||10.3%||1,310,400||2,607,900||10,815,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farming -2||17.50%||2.9%||1.0%||1,260,000||372,600||1,050,000
|-
!align=“right”|Production||22.0%||20.1%||11.9%||1,584,000||2,582,200||12,495,000
|-
!align=“right”|Construction||33.0%||33.1%||14.0%||2,376,000||4,252,400||14,700,000
|-
|||||||||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Total # Working||7,500,000||12,847,000||108,000,000||||||
|-
!align="right"|Labor rate of Participation -3||82%||46.3%||66.30%||||||
|-
!align="right"|Unemployment Rate||7.0%||7.0%||4.10%||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Country Profile||||||Sex / age Profile||||||Worker profile||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Mexican|| 6,840,000 ||57%||men 18-39||5,300,000||43.7%||align="right"|4,500,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Latin & Central Amer.|| align="right"|3,000,000 ||25%||women 18-39||align="right"|3,500,000 ||29.1%|| align="right"|2,000,000 ||60%
|-
!align="right"|Asia|| 1,080,000 ||9%||more than 40|| 1,300,000 ||10.7%||align="right"|1,000,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Europe + Canada|| 720,000 ||6%||less than 18||align="right"|2,040,000 ||17.0%||align="right"|200,000 ||10%
|-
!align="right"|Rest of World|| 480,000 ||4%||Born / yr.||align="right"|300,000||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Totals Jan 2006||12,100,000 ||||Total Pop.||12,400,000||Total Working||7,500,000
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / year||align="right"|700,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||See Note 7
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / Month||align="right"|60,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||
|-
|}
</center>

# Native Population that most closely matches Illegal immigrant population is workers that never graduated from high school.
# Farm work is the only job category that illegal immigrants uniquely fill; but it does have a 30,000 H2-A visa program for it!
# Rate of Participation is fraction of total population seeking work
# Average Education of illegal immigrants may be less if the ~30% Central American's are included.
# How many criminals turn around after deportation and return is unknown; but it is significant that ICE catchs more than they deport.
# Estimated number may be low by several hundred thousand
# Other estimates of net increase are over 850,000 illegal immigrants / year.

Information Sources:

*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population
*[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2]A Description of the Immigrant Population
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm] Labor Participation less than High School
* [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1204.html] Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't
*[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/AnnualReportEnforcement2004.pdf] Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2004
*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/16.pdf] The Labor Force Status of Short-Term Unauthorized Workers
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf] Labor Statistics

==Illegal immigration economics==
The economics of illegal immigration are a highly contentious issue with much conflicting information presented. In 1990 the Congress appointed a bipartisan [[Commission on Immigration Reform]] to review the nation's policies and laws and to recommend changes. Information about the commission and its reports are available at http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/. In turn, the commission in 1995 asked the National Research Council of the National Science Foundation to convene a panel of experts to assess the demographic, economic, and fiscal consequences of immigration. The panel was asked to lay a scientific

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Education, Income and Taxes||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||Asia||Latin America||Other||U.S. / CA
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align =“right”|Years of Education *||14.2||14.7||9.2||12+||14.4
|-
!align =“right”|Household Income *||$42k||$57k||$32k||$42k||42k
|-
!align =“right”|Effective Federal tax rate **||18.7%||22%||5%||18.7%||18.7%
|-
!align =“right”|Effective State tax rate ***||10%||12%||9%||10%||10.9%
|-
!align =“right”|Average Federal taxes ||$7.9k||$12.5k||$1.6k||$7.9k||$7.9k
|-
!align =“right”|Average State taxes||$4.2k||$6.8k||$2.9||$4.2k||$4.5k
|-
|colspan=6|<hr>

|-
|colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' * Census data [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/effect2004/effect2004.html] **Average federal tax data from CBO estimates of effective Federal tax rates [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] ***State taxes are from California Statistical Abstract [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/STAT-ABS/toc.htm] Note: Most of the Federal and state taxes are paid by households earning significantly more than average.

|}

foundation for policymaking on some specific Immigration issues. [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/1.html]
The panel consisted of over 15 well respected professors from highly ranked universities [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The National Science Foundation panels charge was to address three key questions:
# What is the effect of immigration on the future size and composition of the U.S. population?
# What is the influence of immigration on the overall economy?
# What is the fiscal impact of immigration on federal, state, and local governments?
The report by 15+ researchers was issued after 3 years study was called “The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration” (1997) Edited by James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, ISBN 0-309-06356-6. The book is available on line at [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The enclosed table summarizes some of the National Academy of Sciences main conclusions.

Previous studies (and many subsequent} of the fiscal impacts of immigration were found to have serious deficiencies. Indeed in 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available. Many of these represented not science but advocacy from both sides of the immigration debate. These studies often offered an incomplete accounting of either the full list of taxpayer costs and benefits by ignoring some programs and taxes while including others. More important, the conceptual foundation of this research was rarely explicitly stated, offering opportunities to tilt the research toward the desired result. [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/2.html]

'''"As long as there is a virtually unlimited supply of potential immigrants, the nation must make choices on how many to admit and who they should be."''' National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1997.

{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| National Science Foundation Immigrant Economics Federal State Local Net Annual Fiscal Impact per Household [1997]||
|-
| colspan=12|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||%||Asia||%||Latin America||%||Other||%||All||% ||Total Cost *
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>
|--
!align =“right”|California||$1,631||26%||$1,081||25%|| ($7,206)||43%||$3,313||6%||($2.206)||100%|| ($20.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449||26%||$2,022||25%|| ($5,625)||43%||$3,052||6%|| ($1,613)||100%|| ($15.0) billion 
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrant Economics **
|-
!align =“right”|California||$1,631 ||6%||$1,081 ||9%|| ($7,206)||81%||$3,313 ||4%|| ($5,509)||100%|| ($22.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449 ||6%||$2,022 ||9%|| ($5,625)||81%||$3,052 ||4%|| ($4,225)||100%|| ($17.0) billion 
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>

|-
|colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' ''The New Americans'', National Science Foundation Table 6.4, pg 284[http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/284.html] * Total costs calculated for all U.S. immigrants, legal and illegal, 9.166 million households 1995 ** No adjustments for changes since 1995, assumes 4 million illegal households, percent distribution from Pew 
|}

One study put the cost to the federal government at $2,700/household [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html] On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal government are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Still another study put the net costs to California residents at $433/household for European/Canadian immigrants, $1,240/household for Asian immigrants and $8,182/household for Latin American workers [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/161.html TABLE 4-7a Net Fiscal Impacts by Nativity of Householder] pg 160-1. These are the costs calculated for all immigrants legal and illegal. The costs for illegal immigrants are significantly higher since they have even less education, earn even less income and often avoid paying even the small taxes they are elgible for.

Madeleine Cosman contends that the requirement of hospitals to offer service to illegal aliens regardless of the alien's ability to pay has led to many hospitals running a deficit and being forced to close.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf] Also, free public education is extended to all children in the U.S. regardless of their citizen status. The matricula consular and passports are usually considered legal identification by many police agencies and governments.

Nearly all modern developed societies like Sweden, Canada and the United States heavily subsidize the cost of all government services for low income people by heavily taxing the higher income people. In the United states the effective federal tax rate considering all federal taxes as calculated by the Congressional Budget office runs from 4.8% for the bottom quintile [0-20%](avg. income = $34k) to 25% for the last quintile [80-100%] of income households. The bottom two income quintiles, with exemptions, are nearly exempt from all income tax and social security taxes are heavily subsidized. Many illegal workers claim they have income tax witheld not bothering to mention it is nearly always negligibly small.[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] The state's tax systems vary more but nearly always tax the higher income people much more than the lower income people.

According to an article that appeared in [[City Journal]], today's society, unlike the societies of 100 years ago when immigration previously peaked, will not see net gains for society by importing "a bunch of subsidized high school drop outs into it." <ref>Malanga, Steven, ''How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy'', City Journal (undated) [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html Available online]</ref>. An oppsing view is prsented in an [[ACLU]] position paper "The Rights of Immigrants" cites a study by the [[Urban Institute]] in which it is stated that immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services. <ref>ACLU, ''The Rights of Immigrants -ACLU Position Paper (9/8/2000)'', [http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11713pub20000908.html available online] "The Urban Institute has concluded that 'immigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services.' This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. In fact, immigrants pay substantially more in taxes every year than they receive in welfare benefits. "</ref>

* George Borgas of the [[University of California, San Diego]] and the National Bureau of Economic Research says that much of the impact of immigration on wages and unemployment is difficult to determine. <ref>Borjas, G.J. "The economics of immigration," Journal of Economic Literature, v 32 (1994), pp. 1667-717. "If we could observe a number of closed labor markets which immigrants penetrate randomly, we can then relate the change in the wage of skilled and unskilled workers to the proportion of immigrants in the population (after adjusting for the skill composition of both the native population and the immigrant flow). The estimated parameters would summarize the impact on immigrants on native employment opportunities." </ref> He goes on to state that most studies on the economic impact of immigration are framed use this approach and that this approach requires a ''closed'' labor market. Illegal immigration destroys any such closure making it extremely risky to apply studies on the economic impact of immigration to the issue of the economic impact of illegal immigration.

* In an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal (1994), Richard K. Vedder, Professor of Economics at the Ohio University, states that his study found no statistically meaningful relationship between immigration and unemployment and that if such a relationship exists, it appears to work in the opposite direction. <ref>Vedder, Richard K. ''Immigration Doesn’t Displace Natives'', March 28, 1994, [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?ID=269 Available online] "Using several different periods and approaches, we consistently found no statistically meaningful relationship between immigration and unemployment. However, if there is any correlation, it would appear to be negative: Higher immigration is associated with lower unemployment." </ref> He goes on to postulate that immigrants work harder for cheaper wages than citizens.

*Studies by the Rand Corporation came to the conclusion that immigrants do not have a negative effect on the earnings and the employment opportunities of native-born Americans. <ref>McCarthy, Kevin F., Vernez, Georges, ''Immigration in a Changing Economy'', Rand Corporation (1997), ISBN 0-8330-2496-5</ref>

* An article by Leon F. Bouvier from the [[Center for Immigration Studies]] (which generally supports more restrictive immigration policies), cites studies by two authoritative US agencies, the [[Council of Economic Advisors]] and the [[Department of Labor]] that supports the assertion that immigration does not cause job displacement. <ref> Bouvier, Leon F. , ''Immigration and Looser Labor Markets: Unemployment Outlook in Major Immigrant-Receiving Areas'', December 1990. [http://www.cis.org/articles/1990/dec90.html Available online] "The idea that immigration does not cause job displacement has been aggressively argued by many economists during the 19805, and supported by two authoritative U.S. agencies, the Council of Economic Advisors and the Department of labor."</ref>.

==2004 illegal immigration debate==
{{main|United States immigration debate}}
In 2004, [[United States]] [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] proposed a [[guest worker]] program to absorb migrant laborers who would otherwise come to the U.S. as [[illegal alien]]s. However, the details were left to legislators. In 2005, the [[United States Congress|Congress]] began creating legislation to change the current [[illegal immigration]] policies. The legislation approved by the U.S. [[House of Representatives]] led to massive protests.

See also [[2006 United States immigration reform protests]].

==Legal issues==

===Legal and political status===

===Citizenship and the children of immigrants===
Before passage of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], in 1865 after the conclusion of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], the United States commonly granted citizenship on the basis of [[jus soli]]. The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to protect newly emancipated [[freedmen|former slaves]], and in keeping with the jus soli tradition of the Republic has been interpreted by the [[United States Supreme Court]], in precedent set by ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'' in 1898, to cover everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents, with the exception of the children of diplomats. The decision in ''Wong Kim Ark'' upheld the ''jus soli'' which had often been practiced before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In short, the Court found that the 14th Amendment re-affirmed ''jus soli''. ''Wong Kim Ark'' did not overturn or weaken ''Elk v. Wilkins''; it simply defined ''jus soli''. The Court found that Wong Kim Ark, having been born to Chinese citizens, who were lawfully residing within the United States, and with the intention of amicably obeying its laws, was a citizen of the United States. Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly not''' citizens:
* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Children born to [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the [[Indian Citizenship Act of 1924]])
The following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly''' citizens:
* Children born to US citizens
* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people, and obeying its laws.

Under these rulings, the citizenship status of the U.S.-born children of [[illegal immigrant]]s is in the same gray area as people born in foreign countries of foreign parents - that is, neither ruling explicitly denies or grants them citizenship. Various aspects of both ''Elk v. Wilkins'' and ''Wong Kim Ark'' lend reasoning that such children are not US citizens. ''Wong Kim Ark'' is often cited as granting the children of illegal aliens US citizenship, but the ruling is explicit in that it applies to the children of aliens who are legally within the United States. Some may even argue that it implicitly denies them citizenship by doing so. However, in terms of Supreme Court rulings, or the rulings of any court, implicit is meaningless. The ''status quo'' is that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens, and it will remain that way until government policy changes or is challenged, and the Supreme Court inevitably makes an explicit ruling.

Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a [[constitutional amendment]]. The proposed changes are usually one of the following:
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or [[permanent resident]] (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States (requires an Act of Congress, probably challenged to the Supreme Court).

Representative [[Nathan Deal]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] of [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], introduced legislation in [[2005]] to assert that U.S.-born children are only "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (and therefore eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment) if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Similarly, Representative [[Ron Paul]] of [[Texas]] has introduced a constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Neither of these measures has come to a vote. Even if Rep. Deal's legislation were passed by Congress, it would likely be struck down by the courts based on the precedent established in ''U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark'', which allows for the US born children of lawful visitors to be citizens as well. The issue remains controversial, reflecting both tensions about immigration and disputes about the appropriate balance of power between the courts and the Congress.

Children of families where at least one parent is an illegal immigrant are sometimes referred to as ''[[Anchor baby|anchor babies]]'' because once the illegal family's mother gives birth to the baby inside the U.S., the baby is said to "anchor" them to the U.S.. Legally the illegal parent or parents can still be deported so the anchor is more perceived than real. However, some illegal immigrant advocates and some of the children with parents of mixed legal immigration status feel the term "Anchor Baby" is [[pejorative]].

===Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986===
The [[Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]] (IRCA) made the hiring of an individual without documents an offense for the first time. Enforcement has been lax, but major businesses have often been found to use illegal immigrants. The act is somewhat redundant since the forging of government documents (fake immigration documents or providing falsified social security numbers) is already a felony, and for most companies such documents must be provided to the government in its tax filings. However, the government does not notify those whose identities have been stolen for the falsified social security numbers, thus making it difficult to estimate the extent of the problem. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/]

===Legal cases===
Some major companies have been accused of hiring undocumented workers.

* [[Tyson Foods]] was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its [[chicken]] packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee acquitted the company after evidence was presented that [[Tyson Foods]] went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.
* [[Wal-Mart]] was convicted of using illegal sub contracted [[janitor|janitorial]] workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge or permission.
* [[Philippe Kahn]], who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company [[Borland International]] without ever getting [[United States Permanent Resident Card|proper legal status]].

===Use of military to defend border===
See [[United States immigration debate]]

===Immigration with and without quotas===
The immigration quota system was first expanded with the [[Emergency Quota Act]] of 1921 which was used to reduce the influx of East and Southern European immigrants who were coming to the country in large numbers from the turn of the century. This immigration was further reduced by the [[Immigration Act of 1924]] which was structured to maintain the cultural and ethnic traditions of the United States.

There has never been a quota for Jews or any other religious group, only for people from specific countries. The waiting list for the few available immigration spots grew enormously in the 1930s in the U.S. and throughout the free world that was accepting any immigration. In the 1930's the number of Jewish immigrant applicants seeking visa to the U.S. alone exceeded the quota for all of Germany. [[Adolf Hitler]] started his [[Holocast]] program in the 1930's that ultimately led to the death of over 10,000,000 people including 6,000,000 Jews. The [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] administration had nearly shut down immigration during the decade of the [[Great Depression of 1929]]. In 1929 there were 279,678 immigrants recorded and in 1933 there were only 23,068 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. By 1939 recorded immigrants had crept back up to 82,998 but then the advent of World War II drove it back down to 23,725 in 1943 increasing slowly to 38,119 by 1945 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. After 1946 about 600,000 of Europe's Displaced Person (DP's) refugees were admitted under special laws outside the country quotas, and in the 1960s and 1970s large numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/] were admitted under special laws outside all quotas. Congress passed the [[Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965]] which esssentially removed all nation-specific quotas, while retaining an overall quota, and included immigrants from Mexico and the Western Hemisphere for the first time with their own quotas. It also put a large part of immigration, so-called family reunification, outside the quota system. This dramatically changed the number, type and composition of the new arrivals from mostly European, to predominantly poor [[Latino]] and [[Asian]]. It also dramatically increased the number of illegal immigrants as many poorer people now had family or friends in the U.S. that attracted them there. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] In 1986, the [[Immigration Reform and Control Act]] (IRCA) was passed, creating amnesty for about 3,000,000 illegal immigrants already in the United States. Critics believe IRCA just intensified the illegal immigration flow as those granted amnesty illegally brought more of their friends and family into the U.S.. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

Without quotas on large segments of the immigration flow, legal immigration to the U.S. surged and soon became largely family based "Chain immigration" where familys brought in a never ending chain of off quota new immigrant family members. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States are now at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000. Net Illegal immigration has also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970's, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980's to over 500,000 per year in the 1990's to over 700,000 per year in the 2000's. Total illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf], [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html])

See also:[[Immigration to the United States]]

===Other===
There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics.
* During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents.
* [[Linda Chavez]], [[Zoe Baird]] and [[Tom Tancredo]] are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "[[Nannygate]]". In Tancredo's case, a home contractor allegedly hired illegal aliens.

==Historical context==
Every wave of immigration into the United States has faced fear and hostility, especially during times of economic hardship, political turmoil, or war: in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, one of our nation's first immigration laws, to keep out all people of Chinese origin; during the "Red Scare" of the 1920s, thousands of foreign-born people suspected of political radicalism were arrested and brutalized; many were deported without a hearing; and in 1942, 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned in camps until the end of World War II.
===Chinese experience===
In 1882 the [[Chinese Exclusion Act (United States)|Chinese Exclusion Act]] had cut off nearly all [[China|Chinese]] immigration. The first laws creating a [[quota]] for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers. Ngai (2003) shows that the new laws were the beginning of mass illegal immigration, because they created a new class of persons - illegal aliens - whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility. This contradiction challenged received notions of sovereignty and democracy in several ways. First, the increase in the number of illegal entries created a new emphasis on control of the nation's borders - especially the long Canadian border. Second, the application of the deportation laws gave rise to an oppositional political and legal discourse, which imagined "deserving" and "undeserving" illegal immigrants and, therefore, just and unjust deportations. These categories were constructed out of modern ideas about crime, sexual morality, the family, and race. In the 1930s federal deportation policy became the object of legal reform to allow for administrative discretion in deportation cases. Just as restriction and deportation "made" illegal aliens, administrative discretion "unmade" illegal aliens. Administrative law reform became an unlikely site where problems of national belonging and inclusion played out.

===History of border security===
For a period of time in the 1990s U.S. Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal aliens and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR infrared devices, and helicopters. In conjunction with the U.S. Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. Sher Zieve claims this was very effective but temporary as the illegal traffic resumed as soon as the military withdrew.[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]. After the [[September 11, 2001 attack]]s the United States looked at the feasibility of placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure. [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4018573.html]], [http://newsfromtheborder.blogspot.com/2006/07/del-rio-border-influx-drops.html], [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/national-guard-presence-cutting-number.php]

In December, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to build a [[separation barrier]] along parts of the border not already protected by a separation barriers. A later vote in the [[United States Senate]] on [[May 17]], [[2006]], included a plan to blockade 860 miles of the border with vehicle barriers and triple-layer fencing along with granting amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and roughly doubling legal immigration. [[Bay Buchanan]], head of [[Team America]], an [[immigration reduction]] [[political action committee]], estimated that it would take less than six months to build a 2,000 mile, triple-layer fence and would cost roughly $1.5 - 3 billion. On the same show, Buchanan claimed that the 1990s-era border security program [[Operation Gatekeeper]] cut down unauthorized immigration by 90%. The actual numbers are not quite that high with 565,581 apprehensions in San Diego district in fiscal year 1992 before Operation Gatekeeper and its enhanced border fencing and policing to a low of 100,681 apprehensions in in 2002--an 82% reduction. Apprehensions in 2006 are at 138,608 or a 75% reduction. [http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/news/SDUT-4-16-06.pdf]
Apprehensions have gone up in other areas as border security was enhanced in San Diego and El Paso which saw a similar drop in apprehensions.

==References==
<references />

==Further reading==
* Barkan, Elliott R. "Return of the Nativists? California Public Opinion and Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s." ''Social Science History'' 2003 27(2): 229-283. in Project Muse
* Cull, Nicholas J. and Carrasco, Davíd, ed. ''Alambrista and the US-Mexico Border: Film, Music, and Stories of Undocumented Immigrants'' U. of New Mexico Press, 2004. 225 pp.
* Thomas J. Espenshade; "Unauthorized Immigration to the United States" ''Annual Review of Sociology''. Volume: 21. 1995. pp 195+.
* Flores, William V. "New Citizens, New Rights: Undocumented Immigrants and Latino Cultural Citizenship" ''Latin American Perspectives'' 2003 30(2): 87-100
* Lisa Magaña, ''Straddling the Border: Immigration Policy and the INS'' (2003
* Mohl, Raymond A. "Latinization in the Heart of Dixie: Hispanics in Late-twentieth-century Alabama" ''Alabama Review'' 2002 55(4): 243-274. Issn: 0002-4341
* Ngai, Mae M. ''Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America'' (2004),
* Ngai, Mae M. "The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921-1965" ''Law and History Review'' 2003 21(1): 69-107. Issn: 0738-2480 Fulltext in History Cooperative

== See also ==
* [[Immigration reduction]]
* [[United States immigration debate]]
* [[Free immigration]]
* [[History of US immigration]]
* [[Immigrant deaths along the United States Border]]
* [[Migra]]
* [[Nativism]]
* [[NumbersUSA]]
* [[H-1B visa]]
* [[Mara Salvatrucha]]
* [[Minuteman Project]]
* [[S. 2611]]

== Footnotes ==
{{fnb|1}}The [[Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS) defines unauthorized immigrants as “foreign-born persons who entered without inspection or who violated the terms of a temporary admission and who have not acquired Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status or gained temporary protection against removal by applying for an immigration benefit. For example, the following foreign-born persons are not considered to be unauthorized residents in these estimates: refugees, asylees, and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and aliens who are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings. [[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf]]

{{fnb|2}}The [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] and the [[U.S. Border Patrol]] use ''illegal alien'' as their preferred term.
When the term ''undocumented worker'' is used, it generally encompasses all people who enter without documents, including children, the elderly, and those who do not work. The term ''illegal immigrant'' is the preferred language of the [[AP Stylebook]].

==External links==
===News Coverage===
* [[Orange County Register]]: “ 'Visa overstayers' fuel illegal population” - April 5, 2006 [http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1087193.php]
* [[USA Today]]: Text of President Bush's Immigration Law Reform Speech on May 16, 2006 [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-15-bush-speech-text_x.htm?csp=34]
* [[CNN]]: Reaction to Bush immigration speech - May 15, 2006 [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration.reax/index.html]
* [[Miami Herald]]: “No human being is `illegal” – May 24, 2006 [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14652801.htm]
* [[Washington Post]]: “One Sheriff sees immigration answer as simple – May 20, 2006 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]
* [[Associated Press]]: “Ariz. Posse to Arrest Illegal Immigrants” –May 4, 2006 [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html]
* [[NY Times]] “Arizona County Uses New Law to Look for Illegal Immigrants” –May 9, 2006 [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]
* [[City Journal]] “How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy” –no date [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] A publication of [[The Manhattan Institute]]

===Others===
*Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS22026.pdf] a report of the [[Congressional Research Service]] (January 13, 2005) provided by the [[Federation of American Scientists]].

[[Category:Immigration law]]
[[Category:Immigration to the United States]]
[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Legal categories of people]]

[[es:Inmigración ilegal]]

Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-07T22:31:37Z

71.74.209.82: /* ACLU position paper */

==Illegal immigration to the United States==
This is a start in moving this topic to it's own article. It is largely been copied from the main Illegal immigration article. Please please add nice things to it. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 11:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

==Comments on POV statements==

Hi Wallie;

I've added a few additions to your original scheme and hopefully expanded the discusion on this issue. It will be interesting to see if anything useful develops out of your new topic. Unfortuantely, many seem to be prejudices wired for sound and don't want to discuss things in a civilized manner.

Good Luck

[[User:D'lin|D'lin]]

:D'lin, it appears that you inserted a large number of POV statements. Have you read over our [[WP:NPOV]] policy? We need to reflect all points of view, but we mustn't appear to endorse one or the other. Let's make sure that this article is [[WP:V|verifiable]] and NPOV. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 01:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Will beback,

Have YOU read over the NPOV policy? It appears you strongly endorse one side and not the other. Its hard to put in an opposing factual information if one side decides (in their infinite wisdom) that everything they disagree with must be POV material. Trying to present both sides of an argument with those kinds of ground rules is not only patently unfair and dishonest it doesn't help inform people of the true situation.

For example you recently deleted: "Many believe that this illegal immigrant flow has costs that far out weigh any slight benefits. Only by significantly reducing the number of illegal immigrants, drug dealers and criminals crossing the borders can important ecosystems, cities, cultures and traditional lifestyles damage be minimized. Government administrative apathy and failure to act along the Southwest border and in the interior enforcement of existing laws is the single biggest obstacle to doing what the majority want."

I would like to know 1 [one] point that is NOT factually correct.

Cheers,

D'lin

::What is your source for that information and opinion? We can include POV statements, but they should be attributed to the speaker. So it'd be OK if we wrote that, "John Smith, a notable commentator, says that government apathy is the single biggest..." But we can't write that as if it were an undisputed fact. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

==Moving day==

Moving stuff over from [[Illegal Alien]]. Good news is that much is duplciated aleady, i.e., here already, and I have de-duped this. If I have clobbered anything (I don't thinkl I have!), it is not intentional, and anyone is welcome to put it back. Also, if you think anything new is POV, well I have just copied it across. Lets keep this article free of POV tags (big challenge huh?). Happy editing. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

==Partial "Clean up"==

Hey, this is [[User:ProfessorPaul]]. I have begun the process of "cleaning up" this article; I have completed the first 1/3 of it (approximately). I agree it does need to be cleaned up, but I believe we can easily maintain NPOV. I will try to work on the rest of the article tomorrow. [[User:ProfessorPaul|ProfessorPaul]] 05:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

:Please explain each of your edits. So far you haven't explained any of your work, except for this note. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 05:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Will/Professor Paul

:Hope you don't think I am interfering here... I really hope you two guys can work together, as I'm sure you can. I can see that the work presented by you, Professor Paul is of a very high quality, and it would be a pity to see it all reverted, or some silly edit war begin. On the other hand, Will may have some reservations as to the changes. It would be really nice if Professor Paul's changes were made, and fully agreed by Will.

[[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 07:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. On having further thoughts, it may be best to leave the article changed as it is now by Professor Paul, and for you, Will to edit/put back anything that you disagree with. What do you think? [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 07:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

::As long as edits, especialy deletions, are explained, then we can all work together. Unexplained deletions are very close to vandalism, and tend to be reverted. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 19:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

== Hey, check out this odd Wiki link ==
Hey Wallie and Will, check out this Wiki link [[Mexican Immigration Propaganda]]. It is a "stub" of an article that HARDLY has NPOV. It also has a single author. I may want to "wade into it" and NPOV it. What do you two think? Check it out. [[User:ProfessorPaul|ProfessorPaul]] 03:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
:Sounds OK. Bit of a strange topic, though. You never know, though. Might turn out OK. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 21:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

== Giving the Bush speech its own "small" section ==
Hey, how about we give the Bush speech its own "small" section in this article? I will move the small paragraph from "border security" and use that as the starting point. I have a reliable source of the speech's text [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_text Text of Speech from the Associated Press via Yahoo!]. And (hope this goes without saying), I will maintain NPOV. [[User:ProfessorPaul|ProfessorPaul]] 04:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

== Political Groups POV ==

The section of the article which discuses Political groups is very biased and needs to be entirely re-written.

== NPOV - entire article should be reviewed ==

Sections discussing political organizations are biased.

Sections discussing illegal immigration in general are biased and only directed at illegal immigration from the Mexican border. There is no discussion of illegal immigration from other countries.

The article does not cover both issues of the debate - if that is indeed the intention of this article then both sides should be adequately discussed or referenced.

If this is an article about illegal immigration then both sides of the issue should be discussed from a neutral perspective. Arguments about taxes/healthcare/etc. should contain a neutral perspective and no offer speculations as to the effects of illegal immigration unless they are discussed in a section for "arguments of effects".

:O boy. Wasn't long before this came along. To be expected, considering the subject matter. However...
:* Would you be so kind as to sign your comment. Thank you.
:* If you think the article is POV, or there is any other part you are unhappy with, :please please change it.
:* Naturally include both sides of the debate.
:* Please also illustrate with examples from of illegal immigration to the US from the other countries you mention. This is highly relevant, and would be helpful.
:[[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

:NPOV is corrected. It was overly biased to the right. [[User:Liberal102|Liberal102]] 04:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Section 2.7, beyond the first sentence, seems almost on the point of worthlessness. Is a citation of an editorial (i.e., an article written from a point of view) enough to validate the statement that "many native English speakers are unhappy with bilingualism"?? If the "issue is not specific to illegal immigration", why bother including it at all? [[User:A b|A b]] 03:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

:The paragraph as is does seem weak. Perhaps, someone could give a better source and expand upon the impact of differing languages and cultures as relevant to immigration. I do think that the paragraph could possibly contribute to the article as whole. Those opposed to immigration see non-native speakers as an inconvience and other cultures as threatening to their version of the "American way"; however, their xenophobia and motivations against immigration are truly realized by such sentiments. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 04:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

==Benefits Section==

I think the article should go into more detail about the benefits illegal immigrants receive. Everybody knows that illegals get school, food stamps, medical care, and do indeed have fraudulent social security and medicade cards and this was even covered by CNN. If you want to give credibility to the article it should cover this in more detail or people will think its a joke.
:So don't wait for others. Include anything you think is relevant. Naturally, you can expect others to have different viewpoints. This article will always be controversial, but hopefully, as you said, it will be "not taken as a joke", and be informative. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 19:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

==Bush Speech has a new "critics" section==
Hey, everyone, I have noticed a lot of back and forth with people calling President Bush "a liar" in the article. :( If you think he is a liar (and you have no sources), then say it HERE on the talk page. If you have a source, let your SOURCE say he is a liar, then let the source back it up and list the reason/fact/theory WHY Bush is a liar (lots of people said Clinton was a liar too; same rule in his case, too). *whew!* Now--I hope this will help--I have added a "critics to Bush speech" section. It is sourced from CNN and lists critics from the political left and the political right. If anyone wishes to ADD a critic to the Bush speech or policy, add it there. OK? :) Have a good day. [[User:ProfessorPaul|ProfessorPaul]] 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

:BTW, the coverage of the Bush 5/15/06 speech is spread across at least three articles, but this is the most comprehensive, so whatever we want to say let's say it here and we can consolidate them all together in time. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 06:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

==Organized political groups 2 ==

''Why do you think this is biased...? ''

Many organzied political groups have begun to speak out on the issue of illegal immigration (and also legal immigration) resulting in a wide range of policy options under active consideration. One proposal is to reduce the levels of both legal and illegal immigration into the U.S. (see: [[immigration reduction]]). Probably the most important group advocating this position is the [[Federation for American Immigration Reform]] (sometimes referred to as FAIR).''

''* This bit is probably neutral''

Another notable political group, the [[Minuteman Project]] has been lobbying Congress for stronger enforcement of the border laws and is reported to be organizing private property owners along the U.S.-Mexican border for the purpose of building a fence to discourage illegal border crossings. {{fact}}

''* This bit probably presents side 1 of the debate''

Other groups are organzing protests against the federal classification of illegal immigrant status as criminals. These groups also demand various [[right|rights]] be established in law for illegal immigrants to become permanent legal residents (with permission to work) or (eventually) a path for full U.S. citizenship. These groups have also organzied large [[protests]] and [[rallies]] in many major urban centers in the U.S., including [[New York City]], [[Los Angeles, California|Los Angeles]], [[Chicago, Illinois|Chicago]], [[San Francisco, California|San Francisco]], and [[Dallas, Texas|Dallas]].

''* This bit probably presents side 2 of the debate''

However, some have reported that the movement may have generated a significant backlash among those opposed to illegal immigration, which, according to a number of political polls, includes the majority of Americans.

''* This bit probably presents (only slightly) side 1 of the debate''

''So, if you analyze it, it's maybe not too bad.... ?''

[[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

== POV/NPOV Tags ==
What's wrong with the article? Please say so. We can then make it OK, and remove the tags. Thank you. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

:I also don't see why the POV tag is necessary. I haven't carefully read every word, but it looks alright to me. [[User:Tixity|Tix]] 22:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

::OK. So you think everything is OK now. (no news is good news). The POV tags can be removed, if everyone is OK with that. Thanks. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 18:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

:::OK. I now have removed them. Thanks. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 06:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

== Merging with the US Immigration Debate ==
The two are definitely connected.

Options:

* 1) The US immigration debate article should be merged into this one.
* 2) This article should have a short precis about the debate, and the rest of the debate text could be merged into the "Debate" article. Naturally, bits outside the current debate should remain here.

The second option is probably trickier, as which bits of text should go into which article? The subjects are intertwined. Both options have their merits. Note, however, this article is the parent and the "Debate" article the child, just as this article is the child of "Illegal immigration.".

[[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

:I approve a move in the direction you indicate. The long section on the bill there, should have its own article or be placed in an article on that bill maybe. Just one thought if they are merged. Depends what others think. --[[User:Northmeister|Northmeister]] 19:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
::I like the second option better. The debate encompasses legal and illegal immigration, so merging is not a good option.--[[User:Rockero|Rockero]] 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
==Language==

''Illegal immigrant'' is the preferred language per the AP Stylebook and should be used consistently throughout the article. Any attempt to change the language, whether to ''illegal alien'' or ''undocumented alien''/''undocumented worker'', is POV, and will be reverted. [[User:Calwatch|Calwatch]] 04:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

:The language matters are not clear, and we don't need to be dogmatice about it. This isn't the AP, and their stylebook does not apply here. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 07:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

::Will Beback, I agree. I changed the opening paragraph to make a little more sense (calling an 'undocumented worker' an 'illegal immigrant' defeats the purpose of defining 'undocumented worker'). Would it be better to use different terms throughout the article so that revert wars do not ensue on such a sensitive topic? [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 00:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:::No, we need to stick to one term. I propose illegal immigrant, since it's the title of the article. The point of that paragraph is that politicans talk about "undocumented workers" but they do not say that they want to deport the children and parents of their undocumented workers, nor of their brethren that don't work. [[User:Calwatch|Calwatch]] 01:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

::::Ok, why one term? I thought the point of that paragraph was to explain that there are differences in labels - not to push an agenda. I've read the entire article again and the number of times the term, illegal, is used becomes quite annoying. 'Illegal immigration' is the title of the article and represents an action - not a person. I plan to contribute to this article by making it more readable without bias. Hopefully, we will continue in discussion. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 02:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

::::I've made a few changes to the language, corrected some grammar, and cleared up a few paragraphs. Please discuss here before reverting. There is a great deal of redundancy between the sections labeled 'Illegal immigration debate' and the sections 'Documentation', 'Legal issues', and 'Criminal activity'. I think we should work to avoid that. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

:::::The person is here illegally, however, and their very presence in the country is an illegal act. I will concede "undocumented worker" when dealing specifically with the issue of those who are not authorized to work in the United States. However, "undocumented" implies that someone forgot their papers and not that they are in this country illegally. I would be fine with "unauthorized immigrant" which appears to be the ''legal'' term used by the BCIS: [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/2000ExecSumm.pdf] but I concur with the AP Stylebook's explanation of why ''undocumented'' is unacceptable. [[User:Calwatch|Calwatch]] 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

==Major Crossing Points==
I'm currently searching for some major crossing points on the U.S.-Mexico border. A) Does anybody have this info? B) Should we add it to the article?

: B) I don't really understand what such an addition would contribute to the article. Additionally, the article already has numerous points about immigration along the US-Mexico border. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

::We already have [[U.S.-Mexico border]]. That would be the appropriate place for listing licit and illicit crossing points. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

== Human Rights ==

This section is more than a little incoherent. It needs to be clarified as to how the various things it talks about relate to human rights. It also badly needs a topic sentence that mentions (or at least alludes to) human rights. I'd work on it myself, but it's 12:45 a.m. where I am and I'm not nocturnal. --[[User:WikiMarshall|WikiMarshall]] 07:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
==Proposal==
[[User:DKalkin|DKalkin]] has proposed a naming convention for immigration-related topics. Please join the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration)]].--[[User:Rockero|Rockero]] 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

== "Statistics" ==

A user with the IP [[User:172.198.20.32|172.198.20.32]] added in a list of "Illegal immigration statistics" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&oldid=61056999], citing his or her source as "2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigration". I find this unlikely, since the INS became ICE and was folded into the Department of Homeland Security since its creation in 2002. A websearch revealed numerous references to this report of anti-illegal-immigration websites (ALIPAC, etc.), but no hits for the report itself, and none from government websites. Some of the stats may be accurate. However, some of them had only tenuous connections to illegal immigration (i.e. number of Spanish-language broadcasters). The emphasis on crime leads me to suspect an agenda. I have removed the stats in question and am leaving a note here so that if we can get some accurate statistics and reliable sources for them, they can be included at a later time.--[[User:Rockero|Rockero]] 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

==Summary Data==
Shouldn't the table marked "Illegal Immigration Info" which provides profile summary information on illegal immigrants be in the profile summaries of illegal immigrants section?[[User:198.97.67.57|198.97.67.57]] 11:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

== The Quote at the beginning. ==

The quote at the beginning is incredibly biased and I removed it because it does not provide any new information and comes from a biased website.

I pasted the deleted quote below.

'''"We are letting in criminals, subversives, the insane, the diseased and the poverty stricken, uneducated and helpless of the world and all of these mentioned categories become a burden to America's middle class. We are experiencing an invasion, a "reconquista," if you will, designed and orchestrated by the Mexican government. America's immigration laws were set in place to protect the American public. The American public is being victimized by our own government through its pandering to the cheap labor, ethnic identity groups and victimology groups in our society."''' US Border Patrol Supervisor David J. Stoddard [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060518]

:Please sign your comments with 4~s. Thank you for protecting the integrity of the article. That contributor has had multiple biased, unsourced, and editorialized postings on this article - including the lastest where s/he gives an opposition point only to counter it within the same poorly written sentence. Your efforts are appreciated. Keep up the good work. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 01:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the quote does not provide any new information, it just confirms what is known from many other sources, but it does have a lot of credibility and is a good summary of the issues. David J. Stoddard is an experienced Border Patrol Supervisor with a lot more on the ground experience [17+ yrs] then all of us and may very well be correct. The website the quote is stored on is totally immaterial.

[[User:D'lin|D'lin]] 03:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user placed another opinionated quote in the introduction. I have deleted it. Please discuss here before adding commentary to the intro. Thanks! [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 23:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the quote let the readers judge for themselves: ''"Yet while these workers add little to our economy, they come at great cost, because they are not economic abstractions but human beings, with their own culture and ideas—often at odds with our own."''[http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

[[User:D'lin|D'lin]] 00:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

==half the article focuses on the Mexican border==
But if you look at the statistics provided, about half the visa overstayers and about half the illegal immigrants in this country originate from Mexico, so that seems reasonable.{{unsigned|198.97.67.57}}

Actually you are correct, the article should spend more time on Mexican illegal immigration what with about 1,500,000 illegal immigrants per year -100,000 from Canada and perhaps -400,000 more from the rest ot the world this would seem to indicate that 2/3 [67%] of the illegal immigration [1,000,000/year] is occurring from Mexico.

[[User:D'lin|D'lin]] 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV dispute ==

I attempted to delete a link that appeared to be an advertisement for an "anti-illegal" (sic) website. My edit was reverted. In response, I added a link to offer a balance of opinions. I propose that either both should stay as phrased or both should be removed. Please discuss before taking action. Thanks! [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 23:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaving the issue of it being full of loaded language (like "shrill"), the link you want is full of information which is unverifiable or flat out wrong (such as its claim that "AICF's web site suggests that immigrants have 'sown the seeds of ethnic strife in America'" - I checked, it doesn't). What isn't unverifiable or wrong is insinuation, such as when the author of that piece insinuates that these groups are overreporting their membership. This link is an attack piece plain and simple. What's more, the SPLC has been accussed by several people (Horowitz being one of them) of overreporting the threat of racism in order to increase monetary donations it receives. The link you provided is questionable (as it is full of unverified data, flat out wrong data, and unsupported accusatory insinuation, and has its publisher has a contested track record) and the article is full of loaded language. To call it "an attack piece on anti-illegal immigration groups by a left-wing activist group" is being kind.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Both the discussed links are POV. Either both should stay or both should be removed. If Horowitz says something isn't racist, then it must be true, right? I mean African Americans should be grateful for the enslavement of ancestors...at least according to his statements. He is far from anything moderate if you were attempting to make a point. I will change back the description, and will avoid calling the POV numbersusa website what it really is. Additionally, I have placed a POV tag due to the current disagreement and numerous anonymous posts that have an obvious bias to them. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If a link is POV isn't relevant to whether it should be in this article. What is relevant to this article is whether the overall effect of _this_ article is NPOV and whether POV sources have verifiable data. You disagree with NumbersUSA. That's fine. How about addressing your disagreement in a productive way by providing verifiable data which paints a different provides a different perspective? This attack piece by SPLC doesn't do that (it is demonstrably false (such as when it lies about what are on other web pages), unverifiable (such as when it accusses others of racism), and spineless (such as when it insinuates that others are lying about the size of their membership)). Again, I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. (I actually dislike people who agree with me but can't defend their position in a responsible manner. I don't dislike people who disagree with me but can defend themselves in a responsible manner.) Step up to the plate and provide intellectual content. The tactic you have taken (making unsupported accusations against NumbersUSA because it provides statistics you don't like) is agenda driven and does nothing to address this dissention between you and I in a productive way. We can, and likely will, change the link to SPLC back and forth until the end of time if we stay on our current path.
I'm open to reason. Give me something to reason with.
As for Horowitz, he didn't say that blacks should be grateful for their ancestor's slavery. He said that blacks should be grateful to the US for their current quality of life. Go to the source, not to some second hand left-wing demogogue.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

*as stated above: ''flat out wrong (such as its claim that "AICF's web site suggests that immigrants have 'sown the seeds of ethnic strife in America'" - I checked, it doesn't).'' umm, actually it does, located here[http://www.immigrationcontrol.com/short_history.htm] - ''These changes including amnesty for several million illegal aliens have '''sown the seeds of ethnic strife in America.''' Today, over 85% of all immigrants to the U.S. are non-European.''

Now if you are going to include a link to any article, please list the correct name of the article. Wikipedia is after all an encyclopedia, not a blog, and it should retain some level of maturity and professionalism. The article is named “Anti-Immigration Groups” not “Attack piece on anti-illegal immigration groups by left-wing activist group”. If you are unclear on this point, please refer to [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], particularly the part about “NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." Thanks, [[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of creating an encyclopedia article, use verifiable sources (and there's no policy on naming links the same as the title of that page). I recommend that you review the NPOV policy yourself.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 13:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the best way to resolve this dispute is to remove the SPLC link and you do your homework and find a legitimate source which has verifiable data which disagrees with NumbersUSA.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 13:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, the link you want doesn't discuss illegal immigration. It discusses anti-illegal immigration groups. If you want to create an article focusing on anti-illegal immigration groups, your article has a better chance of belonging there. It doesn't belong here.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 14:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

:I've remoevd both advocacy websites, pro and con. Let's stick to news sources. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 20:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

== Images ==

The recently-added images, [[:Image:Immigrant fence.jpg]] and [[:Image:Immigrant.jpg]], are not appropriate. The picture of an individual is recognizable, and so may an infringement on the individual. The photo of people climbing over a fence is original research - they could be anywhere. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 00:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

==Recent edits==
It is hypocritical to argue that links to advocacy groups should be removed and that we should stick only to news articles then TWICE reinsert the link to an [http://www.derechoshumanosaz.net/deaths.php4 advocacy group] just because it supports your political agenda.
Also, the Arizona Star link is just a link to some deaths. It doesn't really make the point that it is used for. The only point it makes is that peope have died in the desert.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 21:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
::The ''Arizona Daily Star'' is not an advocacy website, it's a newspaper. However there is no rule against using advocacy websites as for references if they meet [[WP:RS|relaible sources]]. There is a difference between using a website as a source for a specific facutal assertion, and simply adding it as an external link. The advocacy sites were removed from this page because a) they are included in several other pages already, and b) there was a dispute over which ones to include here. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The Arizona Star doesn't make the point its claimed to make. Further, you wrote "Let's stick to news sources" and are now moving the goal posts. I know of no policy which establishes a relevant distinction in how external links and links to support claims in the article are used. Simple logic suggests that, if there is to be made a distinction, links in the article should have a higher standard than external links. There is a dispute as to whether advocacy groups should be used in the article. We can't pick and choose which advocacy groups are permitted based on our own political agendas.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

::The relevant guidelines are [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:EL]]. Note that there are many articles on this topic, and some already have full lists of advocacy websites. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 21:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to those sources, they make my point even stronger. The Arizona Star article, by its own confession, is full of unverifiable data. A reference to unreliable data is an unreliable reference. As per Wiki policy, "bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor". Therefore, I'm deleting it. Further, as per the SPLC article, it isn't necessary to lower the numbersUSA source to its level as the SPLC link (as originally linked to) fails on the point of "One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view" (which means that it needs to be linked to as an unreliable source) and its claims that anti-illegal immigration groups are racist are unverifiable (they aren't supported in the SPLC article).
Again, thanks, but by pointing me in the direction of these policies, you've made my point stronger.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters3c6a] deleted as it is an advocacy site
http://regulus.azstarnet.com/borderdeaths/results.php?month=00&year=2006 removed as it doesn't make the point claimed for it. "In some areas like the [[U.S.-Mexico border]] in [[Arizona]] and [[new Mexico]] these illegal methods are often dangerous. " deleted as it doesn't have a source.
http://www.derechoshumanosaz.net/deaths.php4 deleted as per discussion earlier on talk page
"In addition to all these hazards illegal immigrants are often abandoned by their human traffickers if there are difficulties, often leaving them to die of thirst, suffocation or heat prostration in the process. Others may be victims of intentional killing, rape or robbery by their often unscrupulous "coyote" guides as at least ~7% of all deaths documented in the desert's of the Southwest are the result of gunshots or blunt force trauma. (See details in : [http://www.derechoshumanosaz.net/deaths.php4 ], overview in [[Immigrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border]]) "
deleted as derechoshumanosaz is an advocacy site and, without it, the other doesn't have a source.
"This extensive illegal immigrant traffic through inhospitable deserts in Arizona and New Mexico has resulted in hundreds of illegal immigrants dying as well as extensive ecological damage to the fragile desert environment and extensive property owners along the border. " deleted as it doesn't have a source
and, btw, these issues were discussed in my last post to the talk page, so don't ask "what note", just read here[[User:198.97.67.58|198.97.67.58]] 12:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

::Please get a username, it's impossible for other eidotrs to know that "198.97.67.58" and "71.74.209.82", etc. are the same person. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A name wouldn't stop someone from logging on with more than one name. That being the case, "it's impossible for other eidotrs to know that "198.97.67.58" and "71.74.209.82", etc. are the same person" isn't much of a reason to get a name. How about just addressing the issues without worrying about who brought them up?

::If you want to be intentionally sneaky, then yes there are ways to do so. If you want to be open and forthright, then you'd get a username. Regarding the info, the www.derechoshumanosaz.net site appears to qualify as a reliable source, as does the Arizona Daily Star. Please don't remove sourced informaiton. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On its top page, the derechoshumanos site states it "fights the militarization of the Southern Border region". This is an advocacy site. You stated you want to not use advocacy sites. Ever since you said that, you've demonstrated an intention to use advocacy sites only when they "support" one side of the issue. Please stop moving the goal posts.
The Arizona Star cite was removed because it doesn't say what it is claimed to say. Please stick to verifiable data and sources.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:Advocacy sites are permissible if they qualify under [[WP:RS]]. My comment about removing advocacy sites only concerned the list of external links. Also, who is Sher Zieve and why are we quoting her? -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 22:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

::Sher Ziev's byline states, "Sher Zieve is an author, political commentator, and staff writer for The New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org). Zieve's op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massachusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Ms. Zieve is currently working on her first political book: 'The Liberal's Guide To Conservatives.'"
As for the advocacy links, Wiki policies make no difference between external and internal links. It makes sense, though, to put a higher standard to internal links.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:::An author with no book and no Wikipedia article doesn't appear sufficiently notable to include. Where does it say in [[WP:RS]] that advocacy sites are forbidden? As I recall, they are only banned if they express extremist views. A catalog of dead illegal immigrants isn't an extremist view. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

::::You want to put advocacy groups -in- the article now? I wish you'd make up your mind. Fine. Put all of the advocacy gruops back in which have been taken out in the past week. You don't want to be biased do you?
Assuming, of course, that there isn't some other reason to leave them out - such as derechos (which is taking data from the Arizona Star and claiming it is saying something which the data doesn't actually support.
As for Sher Ziev, I think a reporter whose work has appeared in the Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massuchusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, international news, etc. can hardly be called a minor reporter. What's your standard for a non-minor reporter? Maybe we need to delete other cites (how many news articles in the article were written by people who don't meet your definition of a non-minor reporter, I wonder?) in addition to links to advocacy groups.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::Don't play dumb. There is a difference between links that are used to support a reference, and links which are appended at the end. The standard for notability around here is having an article. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

""There is a difference between links that are used to support a reference, and links which are appended at the end." Where is a relevant difference mentioned in Wiki policies?
"The standard for notability around here is having an article." Okay, so you think Sher Ziev wrote for all of those papers, but never wrote an article??[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:''As for Sher Ziev, I think a reporter whose work has appeared in the Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massuchusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, international news, etc. can hardly be called a minor reporter.''
For what its worth:

'''The Oregon Herald''': 
She has had 5 columns printed in The Oregon Herald this year. “''The Oregon Herald is a non-profit online news site that provides local, state, national and international news in a headline list format. Updated bi-weekly.''”

“''Many of our reporters are college journalism students, both graduate and undergraduate from universities around the globe. As you might see, we offer an alternative to the standard news website.''”

Based on this [http://www.oregonherald.com/home.htm?m=newscontact page], these 5 columns appear to have been self-submitted; without any expectation of financial compensation.

'''Dallas Times''' 
[[Dallas Times Herald]] (aka: Dallas Times) ceased publication on 9 Dec 1991. (This is the only Dallas Times that I could find per Google)

'''Boston Star, Massuchusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun''' 
The [http://www.bostonstar.com/ Boston Star], [Massachusetts Sun Massuchusetts Sun], and the [http://www.sacramentosun.com/ Sacramento Sun] are news feeds/News portals run by [[NewsIsFree]] “NewsIsFree is an online news reader, RSS Directory and news search engine.”
[[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 05:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I didn't know that. On the one hand, she's been writing for over ten years (assuming she wrote for the Dallas Times before 1991). On the other hand, several of them are newsfeeds. Still, many well-known newspapers use newsfeeds for various articles.
In the end, I don't think the case has been made that she's not a respectable source, but I think you've made the point that she is questionable. If you want to remove her comments from the article, I'm okay with it - assuming we will hold other journalists in the article to the same standard. On one condition, that we establish an operative definition of what is and what is not a good news source.[[User:198.97.67.59|198.97.67.59]] 11:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This all seems kind of silly, the web sites listed could easily be replaced with other sites with similar information and the authors cited could be replaced by other authors. The information is the key not the authors who report the information. Of course some of the information is from advocacy sites of one kind or the other; but even they do have some valid information even if there advocacy is patently obvious and easily discounted. Its impossible to get any where near a balanced view on this subject without reading the different points of view put forth by different advocacy web sites. The advocacy sites that do not have valid information, and there are many, should not be included. Some here seem to want to censor the information that's available because it disagrees with their pre-conceptions and think the rest of us should be "saved" from being exposed to other information.

Cheers,

[[User:D'lin|D'lin]] 16:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

::If someone wants to take the time to find proper sources for the same statements and provide them in a way which makes an effort towards NPOV, I'll have no objection. Laziness in not doing that, however, isn't going to fly as an excuse[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 19:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

==bringing NumbersUSA back==
An administrator suggested that we leave links to advocacy groups out of the article. Then he chose to try to push for that in a very biased way (working to leave some pro-illegal links in while removing pro-border security links). Now, another pro-illegal link has been put back in. At this point we need to reexamine how we are going to treat the issue of links to advocacy groups. Until we do so, to maintain a balanced perspective, I'm going to put the NumbersUSA link back in the external links section for as long as there is a pro-illegal link in the external links section.[[User:198.97.67.57|198.97.67.57]] 11:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to the discussion but I would argue that in is in the Wiki spirit to have as much information as posible, as long as the information is relevant and presented in context. The solution may be to have sub-headings for the links. Something like: "These a pro and these are against"
[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 05:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

:We have an article about [[NumbersUSA]] so it's better to provide an internal link to that article rather than an external link. In general, we want provide information on our pages rather than sending readers out to other sites. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

::Wiki policy (under [[WP:RS]]) states, "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference". In other words, we do -not- want to provide information on our pages rather than sending readers out to other sites. Doing both seems reasonable (as Wikipedia makes a good tertiary, summary source), but using Wikipedia as a primary source is against policy. We should include primary sources wherever possible.[[User:198.97.67.59|198.97.67.59]] 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

:::We're not citing NumbersUSA as a source. We already have an external link to NumbersUSA in the article about that topic. Incidentally, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

::::"We already have an external link to NumbersUSA in the article about that topic." I did a search for NumbersUSA in the article and couldn't find it. "secondary sources are preferable to primary sources" where is that stated in Wiki policies?[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::It's at the bottom, under "External links". For the second item, see [[WP:RS]]. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 20:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::Explain what it means to provide information, but not be a source of information.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

==Legal Issues==
"There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics." Is not a legal issue.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 19:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
::I would suggest you stop editwarring for every single edit made. I would also suggest you take a break from editing, before you find yourself forced to take such a break. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

:::I suggest you spend more time learnig Wiki policy and abiding by it and less time talking about others.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 19:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

== NSF on Immigration Economics ==

I deleted the information under this heading as it is repeated word by word under the heading "Illegal Immigration Economics". Also, the sub topic "immigartion with and without quotas" was moved to "legal Issues".

[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 00:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

== Visa overstay ==

I cleaned up the definition of "overstay" to make it more generic as tourist visa overstay are only one part of the definition. The new definition includes all visa oevrstays.

[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 00:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

== illegal immigration on wikipedia ==

There are multiple instances where an editor has utilized the word, "here", when talking about where immigrants have gone. Currently to my understanding, the wording states the immigrants are on wikipedia. I think they may be referring to the United States, but this article is full of unintelligent, poor writing. If someone would clean this up, maybe the article could be taken seriously. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 14:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

:You have very poor reading comprehension skills if you think "here" refers to Wikipedia in the article. "Here" refers to "the United States". Feel free to edit to clear your confusion.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 14:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

::If "here" is to be assumed as the United States, then its usage would be POV. Someone living outside of the United States would not understand the current assumption. [[User:Kimathi|Kimathi]] 21:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

==[[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]]==

Regarding some comments in this page: '''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.'''

Some suggestions:

* Discuss the article, not the subject;
* Discuss the edit, not the editor;
* Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
* If you feel attacked, do not attack back. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 15:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

==Deletion of external link==
Why is the external link being deleted by anon?
*[http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org Justice for Immigrants: A Catholic, Parish based organization that supports comprehensive immigration reform]]
I would argue that it is may be useful link. The fact that advoactes "pro-immigration" and that is a Catholic group, is not ground for deletion, unless the material on the website is irrelevant to the subject of the article, or contains original research as stated on [[WP:EL]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 23:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

:If this link is allowed in the article, we should also have links to Catholic groups on other side of the issue and to Muslim, Buddhist, Baptist, Mormon, Atheist, Wiccan, and Shinto groups on both sides of the issue. Every pro-illegal immigration link needs to be balanced with an anti-illegal immigration link. Every Catholic link needs to be balanced with a link to another religion. Are you willing to have the article cluttered up with external links? [[User:70.108.100.130|70.108.100.130]] 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

:Two more things:
:# What is "comprehensive immigration reform"? Meaningless politicalspeak. Any link should have an accurate description of what the group actually stands for, such as: "This group supports large increases in legal immigration levels and widespread amnesty for illegal aliens."
:# That Miami Herald "No human being is illegal" editorial should go too. As an aside: just what in the world is a "human being"? Do we talk about our pets as a "cat being" or "dog being"? Is that tree in your backyard an "oak being" or a "maple being"? The term is absurd. Either say "human" or "person", but whoever invented the term "human being" needs to be prosecuted for crimes against linguistics. That aside, the editorial doesn't belong here anyway unless it can be balanced with some on the other side. As a matter of fact it looks like every single external link here is pro-illegal immigration. [[User:70.108.100.130|70.108.100.130]] 23:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As stated in your talk page, you need to cool-off. Your editing behavior is becoming disruptive. Read [[WP:EL]] for guidelines on what can be included on External links sections. You are welcome to add other links, with the caveat that we should end up with a short External Links section. Wkipedia is not a web directory. Also note that [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a battleground]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

: I reserve every right to not cool off when good faith edits are met with a patronozing "test" script from some would-be alpha wolf. [[User:70.108.100.130|70.108.100.130]] 00:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::Anonymous: I am just warning you, that with this attitude of yours, you will (a) piss-off a lot of fellow editors; (b) make this article a pain to edit; and (c) earn youself [[WP:BLOCK|block]] for disruption. Take a break, maybe? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 00:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::You know, in all these responses from you I have yet to see you apologize or admit wrongdoing for leaving the "test" script on my talk page. [[User:70.108.100.130|70.108.100.130]] 00:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I would, if there was a need for it. The deletion of material from an article, such as what you did [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States&diff=66776650&oldid=66771798 here], with the edit sumamry "rm advocacy spam", is considered vandalism. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 00:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::Adding links advocating in favor of illegal aliens, especially if they also promote religion, is just what the edit summary said they are: advocacy spam. It is also not vandalism. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If somebody thinks certain links are inappropriate they have every right to remove them and not be called a vandal. Maybe it's ''you'' who needs to take a break. [[User:70.108.100.130|70.108.100.130]] 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

== Editorializing ==

[[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]. For this text to remain it needs to be cited from a reliable source, in which the controversy is described in these terms, and attributed to that source. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 03:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Moved from article:

: Who are the big losers in illegal immigration?
# The average taxpayer who has to subsidize the illegal immigration as well as live with the higher taxes, more crowded schools, emergency rooms, hospitals, highways, prisons and higher crime rate. According to census data the fraction of labor costs in the final finished product are: farm produce (6%), construction (20-50%), service industry (20%) and production (20%). Assuming that illegal immigration cuts these labor costs by 5-10% the savings to the consumer are very small (1-2% on these items only). The additional taxes needed to susidize these low income households overwhelm this savings.
# All low education workers as they have to compete with all the like wise low educated illegal immigration. The unemployment rate for high school dropouts is typically double that of non- high school dropouts. The wages of the lowest quintile of workers essentially hasn't improved in 20 years. The growing wage gap between low income and higher income workers is due in large part to the fact that the higher educated workers are getting ever higher salaries and the bottom wages have stagnated.
# Even bigger losers are native United States Hispanic and Black workers who have a larger percentage of less than high school educated workers who must compete against an increasing number of low cost illegal labor.
# The environment, of the projected 120-130 million increase in U.S. population by 2050, post-2000 immigrants legal and illegal and their descendants will account for two-thirds, given present trends. [http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/H2OSSPopGrowthCongr.html]
# Government at almost every level as it is bribed, corrupted or co-opted by illegal immigrant advocates to disregard the law.

Who are the big winners in illegal immigration?
# The illegal immigrant and his family although possible family separation tempers this.
# The businesses who hire them may be temporary winners as they get cheaper labor costs often without paying Social Security Insurance, un-employment insurance, workers comp, etc.
# Mexico, it gets to export its unemployment and under employment problems to the United States and gets up to $13-20 billion dollars remitted into its economy.
# The border smugglers (the "coyotes") and their associates on both sides of the border who take up to 90% of all illegal foot traffic (the "pollos" or chickens) across, deliver them to others in the U.S. who in turn deliver them to an employer or relatives for a fee. This business is lucrative and potentially deadly costing each illegal immigrant or his sponsor/family about $1,000 ea. Total business is variously estimated at $2 billion/year to $7-8 Billion (Ken Ellington, "Hard Line", pg. 85) second only to wage remissions in dollar volume.
# The illegal document forgers who are thought to operate muti billion dollar operations
# The labor contractors who often act as go betweens for some businesses and the illegal immigrants.
# Drug dealers,criminals who prey on the illegal immigrants or commit crimes in the U.S. and then run across the border, terrorists who all use the existing illegal immigrant flow to hide their own illegal forays across the border.

I admit I haven't had the time to more than skim these articles, but I would think I would have seen this at least in the headers, and so far, I haven't. I'm looking for any information on the health concerns that unregulated immigration poses, e.g. illegal immigrants entering the U.S. and then spreading tuberculosis (or other diseases that have been basically eradicated in the U.S. but not in nearby countries). I know that a few decades ago (not sure if it's still going on), incoming migrants were screened for serious diseases, which kept major diseases from spreading to those already in the United States. Since this sort of screening can't happen when people enter the country without going through the legal process, obviously it's a concern. So first, where is the article dealing with this, and second, are legitimate concerns about diseases and terrorists "not NPOV" and therefore not to be found on Wikipedia? It's clear that portions of the above removed text are inappropriate, but the financial burden of taxpayers is a legitimate concern and could be phrased more appropriately. (Then again, it's possible that I missed it in the article...I really need to reread this when my eyes aren't falling asleep.) [[User:Kilyle|Kilyle]] 07:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

::Mentioning that identified people are concerned about terrorism and disease wrt illegal aliens is NPOV. But it still needs to be properly attributed. Most of what was mentioned in the deleted part was not properly attributed and, thus, was editorializing. One issue did have proper reference - the ecological impact issue - and should probably be restored. I haven't done so yet because I'm not sure of the best way to do it. If you want to give it a shot, go ahead.[[User:198.97.67.59|198.97.67.59]] 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Ah, okay. I don't actually have time to hunt down sources at the moment, so I hope someone else will.

:::I will note: That illegal immigrants are not screened for diseases needs no source; it is obvious. The real or potential impact of unscreened diseases entering the country (e.g., cases of tuberculosis traced back to illegal immigrants) needs a source, though.

:::Also, that illegal immigrants receive services that they do not pay for, that are in fact paid for by "public funds" (that is, paid for by ''taxpayers''), that too may not need a specific source. Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Yet the public schools are required to provide education for children freely (whether they are in the country legally or not). This means that their children receive education paid for not by their families but by legal citizens who pay taxes. I'd also like to see a link to recent legislation (in California?) that grants reduced college tuition to illegal immigrants—and the amount of the tuition reduction is paid for by taxpayers.

:::I'm more hazy on the details of hospital/health care access. But anyway, that people are receiving free services and benefits while '''breaking the law'''—and that their lawbreaking is the only reason they are receiving such services—is a fact, and should not need a source (although I expect it could be phrased better). [[User:Kilyle|Kilyle]] 22:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

== Edits ==

I have attempted to cleanup obvious POV statements bt summarizing and attributing to sources. There is still much work to be done for this article to be considered compliant with Wikipedia content policies.
# Statements that are not supported by reliable sources need to be removed;
# Material that is supported by statements for advocates, both pro and con, need to be attributed to these and not asserted as fact;
# Unreliable sources such as blogs or personal pages should n0t be used.

This article needs to read as a neutral resource and not as a [[pamphlet]].
[[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved a group of external links attached to a POV sentence to the external links section. If editors want these back in the main article:
# Summarize, cite from these sources
# Attribute the POVs to these making them

[[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

==Keyes==
There is no dispute that Keyes is a Conservative, just that "Conservative" is a sloppy description of the POV of the web site which is already well defined with the descriptors I've already added. Its not redundant, its less than redundant it repeats the same data, only less of it. {{unsigned|198.97.67.56}}

== Unbalanced tag added ==

It is clear from the discussion and the edits that there is an "invasion" of this page by one point of view. I propose that we allow all points of view instead.

[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 23:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think that the tag is unnecessary. If you believe that the article is unbalanced, you need to explain what is missing from the article. If you assess that there is an "invasion", you need to explain what does means. Tags are not there to [[WP:POINT|make a point]], but to encourage a discussion and collaboration. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 00:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:: Thank you. I’m (slowly) learning the rules and etiquette and may have jumped into a topic for passionate people. But there is no question that this article presents an unbalanced point of view. This article presents the “anti” illegal point of view quite stridently but it is not balanced by a “pro” illegal point of view. I would prefer that the article be neutral; but if that is not possible, then lets have both (all?) camps represented.

::I have attempted some contributions towards making the article “more neutral” or “less inflammatory”. For example, I changed:
:::The policy of [[Posse Comitatus]] states that the military will not be used for domestic issues. Some argue that using the military to defend the country from invasion by illegal aliens is a violation of Posse Comitatus. According to former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard, these people are seemingly ignorant of the fact the army patrolled the border for more than 46 years after the passage of the Posse Comitatus act.
::to
:::The policy of [[Posse Comitatus]] states that the military will not be used for domestic issues. Some argue that using the military to aprehend illegal aliens is a violation of Posse Comitatus. Others, including former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard, argue that the army patrolled the border for more than 46 years after the passage of the Posse Comitatus act.
::In under 15 minutes it was back to the original wording. Notice that in the original wording one camp is presented as an officer of the US government and the other camp is “ignorant”. The person who “undid” my edit uses “defend the country from invasion” in a derogatory manner; and cowers under “see the M-W definition”. Well here it is (from the MW website0:
:::1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder; 2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful

:: Notice “conquest and plunder” and “harmful”.

:: Maybe I need to change tactics and fight fire with fire and change from a small attempt at being neutral to a big attempt to be a radical extremist pro my own agenda. Sorry, feeble attempt at humor. Practical things: more citations from respected sources, less inflammatory language, more openness to the point of view of others (I do not want their point of view to go away, but mine should be give some space too). Maybe we can consider dividing the article in two: pro and con (??). I’ll continue to add a grain of sand; one day we’ll have a mountain. Thank you. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 17:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:Aye, Aye, Morlesg! [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and improve the article. the key to NPOV is to describe significant viewpoints without asserting them. See [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial]]. Happy editing. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Look at the entire definition of "invade". M-W states, "invade
1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE
3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE <doubts invade his mind> b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>
synonym see TRESPASS
- in·vad·er noun"
You claim that millions of foreigners illegally trespassing into this country is not the same as them invading it. Is it "plundering"? Again, using the same dictionary, "plundering" means "to make extensive use of as if by plundering : use or use up wrongfully". Are they using the resources of the country wrongfully? If they were using it "rightfully", they wouldn't be illegal. So, yes, millions of people are trespassing into this country to take from it wrongfully. Clearly when we are talking about several million people, we are talking about -extensive- use. The first definition is met. Are they encrouching upon the country? Once more, the dictionary states that "encroach" means "1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits". They are entering by stealth into the possessions or rights of another. They are advancing beyond the usual or proper limits (the national borders). Clearly the second definition is met. Are they spreading over into this country? There can be no debate on that point. The third definition is met. So, if all three definitions of the word are met, the word is accurate and, therefore, appropriate. Regarding Stoddard's comment, I'll see if we can replace the above with a quote.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry Anonymous. You express your point of view very vehemently, excellent. But you make my point: by using “invade” you are expressing a point of view that has no place in an encyclopedia. You are convinced “illegal aliens” are “plundering” and “abusing/encroaching” “by stealth”. You have a right to your opinion, but this is not the forum for this sort of discussion. Give me a break, do I have the same rights? Far as I know there are no Wikialiens (smile).[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I replaced the reference to Stoddard's comments with Stoddard's quote and an admin claimed it was against POV. I'm contesting him on that (he hasn't pointed out how, exactly, it is against POV and unless he does soon, I'll revert). To avoid a revert war, I'm waiting for a reply. But I just want to let you know that I am working towards a tighter reference on that point. I'm not skipping out on it.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

::::This isn't [[Wikiquote]]. It's the task of encyclopedia editors to summarize wherever possible. We cna say what the individual's POV is without quoting him at length. We should also make sure to include differing POVs as well. If we quoted a paragraph from every notable commentator the section would be too long. All we need to say is that some believe the use of military in this instance violates the Posse Comitatus while others do not. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think you need to review the policy on that. Its very clear. "Some people believe" is the kind of words which are discouraged. We should mention specific people and give specific reference. You say this isn't Wikiquote, but it sure isn't Wiki_say_whatever_I_want_and_make_vague_references_to_'some_people_saying_it' either.

::::::We can summarize an individual's position. Something like, "Some commentators, including a former border guard, believe that the Posse Comitatus does not apply." It's not that hard. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 21:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::Wiki policy is to never delete information unless it is duplicate, redundant, irrelevant, patent nonsense, a copyright violation, or inaccurate (and note that redundant data must be judiciously weighed for deletion as redundancy as reducing redundancy increases inaccruacy). The content we are disputing meets none of those criteria.
Also, note that there is no policy against posting quotes. In fact, Wiki Policy states under reliable sources, "When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence, using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link. " Finally, note that your proposed alternative "some commentators.." would force the disputed content to use weasel words (which are against a Wiki guideline).
In short, the edits which have been done here by one administrator and those which have been further proposed by another administrator are in violation of three wiki guidelines and/or policies.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::''Wiki policy is to never delete information unless...'' Where does this policy appear? -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::See [[Wikipedia:Editing policy]] about half way down the page it states, "So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include: duplication, redundancy, irrelevancy, patent nonsense,
copyright violations, inaccuracy, or where the accuracy of the information cannot be established"[[User:198.97.67.56|198.97.67.56]] 11:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Not so fast, my friend. Your ''interpretation'' of these is out of whack. Yes, you can cite these as part of the citation format, but not on the body of the article (e.g. "using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link") . I would suggest that before you throw policy around, you learn the ropes first. It will save you and all involved editors a lot time and aggravation. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 21:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Where's the source of your quote above? Its not what I just wrote. What I wrote states clearly, "the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence". Take the entire quote as a whole and it is clear that "citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence, using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link" are listing four different options for putting the quote in the article. We can choose which of those four to use, but to not use any of them is against policy. If you are referencing another policy, point me to it. I want to read it in context.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

== External Links ==

I'm putting my effort behind my mouth! Changed external links section and created (suggested) some categories (did not erase any of the current links). Now (hopefully) we can all add links without the fear of getting them erased by the next contributor. Be bold! you said? [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 17:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

:That's great, however pay attention to the policies regarding what is and what is not a good source. Adding poor sources can still result in having them deleted. Actually, any source can be deleted (this is an open community project after all), but poor sources will be deleted faster. So, aim for the best sources available and work towards creating a good article worthy of being in an encyclopedia.[[User:198.97.67.58|198.97.67.58]] 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

::Some of the external links have no description and so appear just a numbers. That isn't helpful at all. Regarding organized oppositon to illegal immigration in the U.S., we have a whole article on the topic, [[immigration reduction]], which contains a comprehensive list of links to such groups. We don't need to duplicate that info here. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Will. I take no credit for the links. I just cleaned them up. Didn't have time this morning to do all of them. Now it's done. You are absolutely right in that the "immigration reduction/limitation" camp is well represented; my concern is that there are many views on the subject of illegal immigration and all attempts at adding them to this article and all attempts at moderating the radical views expressed here are shot down in seconds. This article looks like a war zone. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 01:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

:::My view is that all of the material in the immigration reduction article should be cleaned up and merged with this article.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

::::They are different topics, though there is some overlap. That article concerns the political movement, and is not limited to illegal immigration. The overarching topic is [[Immigration to the United States]] (which also contains a lengthy set of links). -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

== Citizenship granted by court ==

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

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

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

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

::"The term Anchor Baby is pejorative" may be relevant to whether the name of that article should be changed, but it isn't relevant to whether the content of that article (and of the relevant material in the 14th amendment article) should be combined with the same material in this article and ONE article created from it. "If the citezenship status of peoplo born un the USA (to illegal ot to legal resident parents) is a legal issue we must have a discussion in the artlicle" NOT true as is evidenced by the fact that we've already done the same thing with other content in the article.
Incidently, maintaining three different pages with the same content creates what is called a content fork (see [[Wikipedia:Content forking]]). From that page, "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject..content forks ..are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies."[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

== login 68.223.158.169 ==

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

Wow! Wasting way toooo much time here. It's me. Now I'm logged in[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 04:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

:unverifiable

::Dear Anon. Please revert this change. Here the source "according to the [Pew Hispanic Center] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. Further, by 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53]. If the numbers are down then the fear that illegas are "pouring over our borders" is unfounded. Thank you. [[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

this article isn't about legal immigration

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

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

:Please get a [[Special:Userlogin|username]], as your ISP is generating dymanic IP addresses and it is quite impossible to follow your edits. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 20:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

weasel words

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

unsourced

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

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

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

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

weasel words

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

no source

== Anon edits ==

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

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

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

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

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

:::::Among other things, it is forbiddden to use different IP addresses to avoid the 3RR. In order to bettre identify who is who, we may have to start identifying those IPs which appear to belong to a single user, and to come up with a name for that user. You can pick one yourself or we can do it. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 21:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::This user has been warned already several times about disruption related to this article:
:::::*Three times as [[User_Talk:71.74.209.82]]
:::::*Twice as [[User talk:198.97.67.58]]
:::::*Twice as [[User talk:198.97.67.57]]
::::: On this basis alone, this editor IP addresses may be blocked for disruption. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

::"Look 71.74.209.82, you have been warned seven times already about disruptive edits to this article." You tried an WP:RFFP calling me disruptive and it was immediately turned down. Now you are being petulent.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::If at all, I would be petulant, not petulent. Nevertheless, VoiceofAll will hopefully review the situation, as it is clear now that you have engaged in disruptive behavior from at least three IP addresses. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::::No problems. I will place a request at [[WP:ANI]], so other admins can look at this issue. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

:You can use these templates to request a conversation about mergin articles:
:*{{tl|mergeto}} - add a <tt>{<nowiki>{mergeto|PRUCOL}}</nowiki></tt>, for example to the [[Anchor baby]] article
:*{{tl|mergefrom}} - add a <tt><nowiki>{{mergefrom|Anchor bab}}</nowiki></tt>, for example to the [[PRUCOL]] article
:Concerning your last edit, please summarize the Pew Hspanic report cite text you added rather that pasting full quotes. Yoy can have a full quote as a footnote. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

==Renew America==
The direct quote from Renew America in which it defines itself was replaced with something which I have no idea where it came from. Why replace a direct quote with something the editor seems to have made up?[[User:198.97.67.59|198.97.67.59]] 11:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:If you look at the edit summary, you will see where it comes from: the description metatag text of the website's home page. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
::And how is that suppossed to be sourced in the article?[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::By the use of {{tl|cite web}} [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

==Renew America copyright violation==
Currently we are using a full paragraph from the Renew America web site, specifically the article titled: Mexican government running US immigration policy--Part III[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713], last paragraph on the page. The over all article is approximately 1954 words in length, of which this article is using approximately 195 words, or 10% of the total article. 10% of someone else’s article is not fair use by any definition that I can find. Part of the text is used in - Illegal border crossing-, and the other part is used in - Use of military to patrol border-.

[[Wikipedia:Fair use]] lists for text: 

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

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

[[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 11:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:Please delete the offending text. Thanks for spotting it. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 15:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::Obviously it needs to be fixed. The problem is that, on one hand, we should quote people whenever discussing their position and on the other hand, we can't quote too much without risking copyright infringement. So, how much needs to be cut to avoid copytright infringement?[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:::You can summarize the quote in the body of the article and then link to a footnote in which a short quote can be added. That is, of course, if the quote is attributed to a notable/reliable source. See [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:CITE]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 22:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::::See [[fair use]]. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 23:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::According to that link, "it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy". The intent in this article was not to supersede the use of the orginal work or to substitute the review of it. So, there's no basis for saying that 10% is too much[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

==It follows that…==
This section is clearly violates Wikipedia’s policy on Original Research - [[Wikipedia:No original research]]:

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

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

The policy in a nut shell is stated as:

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

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

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

==Deletion of unsourced content==

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

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

has been deleted because it is unsourced[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 14:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

==ACLU position paper==
An [[ACLU]] position paper "The Rights of Immigrants" cites a study by the [[Urban Institute]] in which it is stated that immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services. <ref>ACLU, ''The Rights of Immigrants -ACLU Position Paper (9/8/2000)'', [http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11713pub20000908.html available online] "The Urban Institute has concluded that "immigrants actually generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services." This is because undocumented workers, despite their ineligibility for most federal benefits, frequently have Social Security and income taxes withheld from their paychecks. In fact, immigrants pay substantially more in taxes every year than they receive in welfare benefits. "</ref>
That study [http://www.urban.org/Publications/411338.html] focused on Washington DC and, so, did not factor in the effect at the state and community level and focused on immigrants who are mostly wealthy and not illegal immigrants. It is not connected with the subject of this article.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

:Not so (my highlights):
:*"The metropolitan area is relatively affluent and boasts a strong economy that attracts large numbers of immigrants for jobs '''at both the high- and low-skilled ends of the labor market'''"
:* "Troughout the report we refer to households headed by immigrants ('''whether citizens, legal immigrants, or unauthorized migrants''') as “immigrant households” and compare their incomes and tax payments to households headed by native-born U.S. citizens."

:You can add that the study was done in Washington DC, if so you wish. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈ ]] [[User_talk:Jossi|t]] • [[Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 03:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

== PRUCOL ==

I removed the mention PRUCOL under "Citizenship and the children of immigrants". It had a [citation needed] for a few days an noboby provided support for the statement. 
According to the Department of Labor, in defining who is and isn't elegible for unemployment compensation they define PRUCOL as:
:Quote. The phrase "permanently residing in the United States under color of law" applies only to the following classes of aliens:

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

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

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

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

For more information see "UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 01-86, Change 1" (2/16/89)
[http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl86/uipl_0186c1.htm]. It has nothing to do with children born to undocumented workers.

[[User:Morlesg|Morlesg]] 20:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:MER-C/archives/1

2006-08-07T22:11:39Z

71.74.209.82:

== '''Welcome to Wikipedia!''' ==
Dear MER-C:
[[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|Welcome]] to [[Wikipedia]], a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

* [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|Five Pillars of Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:Community Portal|Community Portal]]
* [[Wikipedia:FAQ|Frequently Asked Questions]]
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
* [[Wikipedia:Revert|How to revert to a previous version of a page]]
* [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]]
* [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Copyrights]]
* [[Wikipedia:Shortcuts|Shortcuts]]

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click [[Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes|here]] to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the '''[[Wikipedia:New contributors' help page|New contributors' help page]]''', where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type '''<code>{{helpme}}</code>''' on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|never biting new users]]. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an [[Wikipedia:Administrator|administrator]]. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to [[Wikipedia:User page|tell us about]] [[User:{{PAGENAME}}|yourself]] and be [[Wikipedia:Bold|'''BOLD''']]! [[User:MichaelZ526|Michael]] 04:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

==Endurance Crater==
Thanks for the cleanup on Endurance with those break=clear all's. They really straightened the article out. Now to add more substance... -- [[User:Riffsyphon1024|Riffsyphon1024]] 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
: I agree, there are way too many pictures for that little article. There's some interesting papers that are freely available over [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/lpsc2006.download.html here] and [http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/lpsc2005.download.html here], however I have not read them all yet. -- [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
::There should be some expansion to the parts of the crater where the most science came out, which might warrant the creation of subarticles on the features of the crater if need be. I'm particularly interested in Burns Cliff since they seem to have traced it out as the first real geologic formation on Mars. -- [[User:Riffsyphon1024|Riffsyphon1024]] 06:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Though now that I think about it, theres not much in Endurance to begin with, so we will have to expand on it there to fill it out and place the images better. One way or another. :P -- [[User:Riffsyphon1024|Riffsyphon1024]] 06:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I tried to expand the article a bit, however there isn't much stuff over at the official MER site or at [http://unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showforum=2 one of the better known "back seat driver" forums]. Most of the content is hidden in subscription requiring journals. And I am not a geologist, so I do not understand many of the things said in such papers. -- [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 06:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Since you refer to the JPL's MER site, there is information in their archives that I can look up, but theres alot of stuff. -- [[User:Riffsyphon1024|Riffsyphon1024]] 08:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Unfortunately, none of it is of real scientific interest. Most of it goes something like "we went into the crater...saw an outcrop...drove to it...used the RAT a few times...took some color pictures...used the MI - "Ooh, look at those [[Martian spherules|little round balls!]]"...Mini-TES...APXS...Moessbauer integration...there's another outcrop, blah blah blah. Whereas Edgett's paper on Meridiani Planum and the LPSC papers say much more, more directly, than what we can get from the JPL site. Examples: "Victoria is an exhumed crater", "Endurance is more exhumed than Victoria", "The strata encountered at the MER-B site go down for about another 150m", etc. I feel that I have adequately summarised the JPL information without having to add more pictures. -- [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Well you can't blame a bunch of planetary geologists getting excited about hematite on Mars. ;) -- [[User:Riffsyphon1024|Riffsyphon1024]] 16:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

== |db-unksource ==

Please do not stick {{tl|db-unksource}} where the image is already marked for CSD I4 using another template, as you did with [[:Image:Great Mighty Poo.jpg]]. unksource is redundant in this case, and my experience has been these tags are not usually removed by vandals, so there is no need to beat the 7-day waiting period to get these deleted. Regards, [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 14:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:Fair enough. --[[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 04:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

== Good work ==

Well done on finding all those old images without proper licences. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 09:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:They're at "Category:Uploader_unsure_of_copyright_status" (wikilink doesn't want to work). I'm only half done, so there are plenty to come. Thanks. --[[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

== Stop reverting the Muslims by Nationality ==

That edit is not Vandalism he is removing old data. [[User:Aeon1006|Aeon]] [[User talk:Aeon1006|Insane Ward]] 05:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
: Yes, the 1994 census data is old, however he is removing some more recent stuff with it. I'll let someone else decide. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 05:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
::Simply ask him why he is removing it. That way you don't get into a revert war. I have removed the Test 4 fromhis page. Unwarented. [[User:Aeon1006|Aeon]] [[User talk:Aeon1006|Insane Ward]] 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I placed that template just before you contacted me. I've asked on the IP's talk page. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 05:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

==Your edit to [[Sean Thomas]]==
Your recent edit to [[:Sean Thomas]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Thomas&diff=65504286&oldid=65502513 diff]) was reverted by an '''automated bot''' that attempts to recognize and repair [[Wikipedia:vandalism|vandalism]] to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. '''[[User:AntiVandalBot/FAQ|Click here]]''' for '''frequently asked questions''' about the bot and this warning. // [[User:AntiVandalBot|AntiVandalBot]] 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing on the article [[Sean Thomas]]? It seems to be a valid edit.[[User:GofG | GofG]] ||| [[Special:Contributions/GofG | Contribs]] 06:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
: Only parts of it is valid. Towards the end, it reads too much like a life story and thus isn't NPOV. A sample:

:{{cquote|Lately the last year I have read some awesome books including; The Celestine Prophecy and The Tenth Insight, by James Redfield, Angels and Demons, The Divinci Code, Deception Point, and Digital fortress all by Dan Brown

When you’re with a girl you go out to movies...........a lot! More and more i'm finding inspiration in books and movies as an alternative to bands. I think in the last year or so there has been a great quantity of quality movies both commercial and independent. Some of my faves have been Garden State, as funny as napoleon dynamite, as real as today, I loved napoleon but who didn’t? There was "The Station Agent" and Metalica's "some kind of monster" "Lord of the rings" and the highly anticipated "revenge of the sith" I’m a big fan of all the star wars movies.}}
:[[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 06:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

==Stupid "On Wheels" vandal... seems to get everywhere!!!==

Glad to see you're ontop of this one... [[User:I ate a banana in the freezing rain!]] We had problems with an "On Wheels" vandal on MA (Memory-Alpha) a few months ago. Not sure if its always the same guy, or if its actually a bunch of people, or even a load of copy-cats... whatever, its good to see that they're not having too much of an impact here! [[User:Zsingaya|Zsingaya]] 12:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like it's gone now, after being blocked for the third time. I'll continue to monitor recent changes until I log off to bed in half an hour. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
::Willy (See [[WP:WoW|Willy on Wheels]]) is a pain in the butt, glad to see you were on top of it. [[User:Aeon1006|Aeon]] [[User talk:Aeon1006|Insane Ward]] 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks! ==

Thanks for reverting the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gary_Kirk&oldid=65544165 vandalism] to my userpage!
— [[User:Gary Kirk|G]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|a]][[User:Gary Kirk|ry Kirk]] | [[User_talk:Gary Kirk|talk!]] 13:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
: Seems like the communism vandal. LOL. You're welcome. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
== renaming instances of "Thermal Design Power" ==

Please look at the discussions on german Wikipedia. [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Thermal_Design_Power#Thermal_Design_Point] There was a hint on this a long long time on the discussion-page of thermal design point. but nobody did anything. till today. i did something. [[User:134.30.5.94|134.30.5.94]] 14:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, you did a [[Wikipedia:Cut and paste move|cut and paste move]]. Registered users have a mechanism to move pages while preserving the page history. That's why I reverted it. The admins will come along and sort things out, since your antics made sure I cannot move the page myself. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== Request ==

Please do not cut and paste the [[Pro-life]] article into the [[Anti-choice]] page.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|'''Conrad Devonshire''']] [[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''Talk''']] 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:That wasn't me. It's an IP - [[User:24.115.41.168|24.115.41.168]]. I'm trying to sort it out. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 04:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
::Oh, I apologise for the mixup.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|'''Conrad Devonshire''']] [[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''Talk''']] 04:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== Reverting Paignton edits ==
Hi, earlier today you reverted (rightly as far as I can see) an edit in the [[Paignton]] page. I've reverted it twice since, however I've not been around enough to know what to do next? I realise it comes from an IP address used by others potentially. Help would be appreciated - cheers
--[[User:NigelR|Nigel]] 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:See [[WP:UTM]] for an appropriate warning to put on the talk page. Once you have had enough, go to the [[WP:AIV|admins]] for a block. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks - more garbage again today - I've reported it (but couldn't revert [[Paignton]] pages as I've reverted it twice already in 24 hours?). Appreciate the advice, have a good life [[User:NigelR|Nigel]] 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Reverting (blatant) vandalism doesn't violate 3RR. I've reverted seven times in ten minutes over at [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] before the admins came and blocked that vandal. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Again thanks, gradually building up the knowledge. I guess I'm irritated by this one for a number of reasons not least of which that I appear to be funding a uk gov department to waste time <g>. A three hour block was placed on the IP as it's shared but I'm sure it will come back. Regards [[User:NigelR|Nigel]] 08:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::If it continues, go over to [[WP:RFP]] and request semi-protection. I hate shared IPs too - they can't be blocked without shutting out legitimate users. AOL is the worst - you get so many vandals (like that sockpuppet further down). I just wish they blocked AOL once and for all (but still let legitimate people log in and create accounts). [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(indents removed) Thanks again MER-C - the more I look the more I agree about shared IPs - why don't people register, it's not difficult! Cheers -- [[User:NigelR|Nigel]] 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

== Your first Barnstar! ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | [[Image:WMBarnstar.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Working Man's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I award you the Working Man's Barnstar for reverting vandalism and tagging pages for cleanup, wikifying or deletion like no one else on Earth. It's the first time I give anyone a barnstar and I'm absolutely sure I'll not regret giving it to such a hard-working editor as you. [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 05:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
|}

P.S. I'm also in UTC+8 timezone! Which country are you from, if you don't mind me asking? [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] 05:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
: Thanks. I'm from Perth, Western Australia. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 07:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

== Leave my page alone ==

Please stop doing that to my page. You wouldn't want it to happen to you, would you? --[[User:YankeeFan2006|YankeeFan2006]] 08:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:You're a banned sockpuppet as far as I can tell. Why should I listen to you? [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::Why should you listen to those other users that suspect me. Just because I log in through AOL doesn't nessecarily mean I'm some other banned AOL user that's on a mission to vandalized the RfA pages. Yes, I vote from time to time, but all I'm trying to do is write an article about the [[Yankees]] in their quest to make the playoffs. Unfortunately, because I have to connect with AOL, and I can't choose which IP address to login from, I can't hel pit. Now, because I accidentally voted twice in an RfA my page must be bombarded and I be block? Don't really make sense. --[[User:YankeeFan2006|YankeeFan2006]] 08:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes you can. Change ISPs or use a non-AOL browser, e.g. [[Mozilla Firefox|Firefox]]. By the way, your edit history suggests you are a sockpuppet: see [[User talk:Bunchofgrapes#Shenanigans]]. If you aren't a sockpuppet, prove it. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 10:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I would need to be on an independant connection. I'm just her e to contribute to Yankee pages, that's all. I'm not here to mess uo pages, why do you think that way? [[User:Yankeefan2006..|Yankeefan2006..]] 09:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Let's see what the admins have to say. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::I wouldn't be here making useful edits if I was a "sock". [[User:Yankeefan2006..|Yankeefan2006..]] 09:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Such as? See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Yankeefan2006..]. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Why can't you be patient, who do you persit in blanking my page?[[User:Yankeefan2006..|YankeeFan2006]] 10:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(indents removed for readability)
Until you disprove the evidence that strongly suggests you aren't a sockpuppet, I will continue to revert your removal of the sockpuppet templates. Why haven't you done so immediately? [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 11:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

== EDO Corporation ==
Please explain why you have edited EDO Corp page of latest update. {{unsigned|81.98.157.111}}
:Sorry about that, I saw your last edit and mistook it for a section blanking by some vandal IP (which I see very often) and just reverted blindly without checking the history. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! If you'd like to continue to make high-quality contributions, I suggest you recognise your good work under a fixed identity, not just a collection of four changing numbers between 0 and 255. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

... for reverting vandalism to my userpage :-) Cheers --[[User:Srikeit|Srikeit]] ([[User talk:Srikeit|Talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Emailuser/Srikeit|Email]]) 12:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

==Thanks==
Hi MER-C. Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage by [[User:68.45.174.91|68.45.174.91]]. By the way your warning on their talk page appears not to have parsed correctly. - [[User:Gimboid13|Gimboid13]] 09:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. Thanks for letting me know about the talk page - it was a typo. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed thank you for saving my talkpage too :) —[[User:Xyrael|Xyra]][[User:Xyrael/Esperanza|e]][[User:Xyrael|l]] 11:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. Unfortunately, when doing vandal patrol you have to keep an eye on your user pages in case the vandals retaliate. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

== STOP!! ==
Stop reverting my edits. This user spammed many pages claiming that these are my sockpuppets, and I am removing the false claims. Please, just revert your reverts for these are things involving me. I am removing all the spamming that this user did to a bunch of pages after he got mad at me. Revert your edits that you made. Thank you. --[[User:69.227.174.70|69.227.174.70]] 09:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:Removing sock puppet notices, especially as an IP, can be construed as vandalism. I've seen sockpuppets do that before, see the Yankeefan2006.. saga above. Removing sockpuppet templates makes other people think that you are a sockpuppet too. This is not the place if you want the notices removed - go to [[WP:ANI]] or the talk page of a [[Special:Listadmins|sysop]]. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

== [[Alliance for Aging Research]] ==

Thanks for catching that copyvio. I can't believe my spidey sense didn't go off on that one, looking back it was kind of an obvious copy and paste job. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 13:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. The heading "who we are" gave it away. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

==[[Damages]]==

You have just reverted a page to its previous wrong and frankly misleading history and undone all my edits, which took a substantial part of yesterday. You left no explanation. What is your role in this organisation? Can you please take another look at it. You will see from the talk page that it is not a finished article, and has further work to do. I assume from your actions you wish me to stop editing this article, and so you think that wikipedia is best of with the previous version? I am a busy professional, who actually knows about this topic, but who can't be bothered to play games undoing all this. --[[User:BramleyBarn|BramleyBarn]] 08:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
:You removed a large amount of (misleading) content, which I mistook for vandalism. I agree that your edits were legitimate - sorry about reverting you. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 11:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

:: No probs! I'm new here and I was confused! Please drop back cos I'd welcome feedback. Cheers. --[[User:BramleyBarn|BramleyBarn]] 11:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

:::On further inspection, your last edit appeared to have truncated the article. (Do you use Firefox and the Google toolbar - see [http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5643 here?]) That's why I reverted it - I've installed [[User:MER-C/monobook.js|a script]] that mimicks the rollback function the admins have, which removes consecutive contributions by an editor with one click. It's great against page blank vandals who remove one section, save, remove another section, save and so on and other vandals in general but can cause collateral damage. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Yeah - I'd notice truncating articles happening a lot. (The damages article should be OK again now). Let me investigate this article - Thanks for that. --[[User:BramleyBarn|BramleyBarn]] 12:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::It's fine. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 13:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

== MY SUGAR CAT edit ==

Yes, you edited my [[My Sugar Cat]] page, and even said "Stop shouting". I'd like to let you know that the name of the single was all in capital letters and it was kinda unecessary to edit it, let alone say such things. Unless it's a formatting rule and if it is, then please tell. {{unsigned|Mad Cactuar}}
:The capitalisation on the album cover is optimised for marketing. However, one should use ordinary English conventions when writing about it. I have a book on my desk right now - on the front cover it says "THE JUNGLE IS NEUTRAL BY F. SPENCER CHAPMAN" however when referring to the book I would write "''The Jungle is Neutral'', by F. Spencer Chapman". [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 11:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't merely on the album cover. It's released with that name, even the official website puts it as that name. It's the official name to use caps, it's a Japanese single not an English one. Some Japanese singles use capitals for their name. Anyway, as you please. One question, how do you find suitable categories for the subjects, and once you do get categories how do you remove the banner on the page that says "This article needs to be categorized" and stuff? Plus, how do ya sign names? {{unsigned|Mad Cactuar}}

:To find suitable categories, start looking at something you know that the article fits in, such as [[:Category:Albums]]. Look at the subcategories and gradually select more specific categories. Once you are finished, add <nowiki>[[Category:X]]</nowiki> where X is one of the final categories you selected to the bottom of the article and remove the <nowiki>{{uncat}}</nowiki>. Also, some templates put articles into categories. For example, [[Endurance (crater)]], as the name implies, is a crater. We go to [[:Category:Craters]] and look at the subcategories and notice [[:Category:Craters on Mars]] which has no subcategories. Thus we put that into the article. To sign, type <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
[[User:Mad Cactuar|Mad Cactuar]] 12:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

== Barnstar! ==

{{award2|image=Barnstar_of_Reversion2.png|size=100px|topic=The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|text=A regular, familiar name in the diff trenches of the [[WP:RCP|RC Patrol]] -- you keep beating me to reverts, dammit! :) Very glad to have you around, you've only been here a few weeks, and already you're becoming quite an asset. [[User:Luna Santin|Luna Santin]] 12:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)}}
:Thanks! :) [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 13:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

==Recent edits to 198.97.67.59==
This is a firewall which assigns a common IP address to multiple users. Making edits anonymously is within policy. "Sock puppet" is a highly pejorative accusation which implies many things which have not been used here (such as being deceptive about the several accounts being connected and using the accounts to avoid the 3RR rule). Unless you have specific reason to believe that these multiple accounts have been used to circumvent policy (and, since they haven't, I'd be curious as to what your reasons are), please assume good faith.

Thank you.[[User:198.97.67.56|198.97.67.56]] 12:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:Please whack a <nowiki>{{</nowiki>SharedIP|''your organisation (if you connect through a corporate proxy) or ISP''}} on your talk page so that we can tell that your IP is being used by many users. We generally assume otherwise. Removal of sockpuppet notices is a strong indication of sockpuppetry itself, see the Yankeefan2006.. saga above therefore it's one of the things I revert automatically. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

::I believe you are a SysOp? Please review this matter. Look at the discussion regarding the anon edits in [[Illegal Immigration in the United States]]. Note that a couple of admins insist on posting a tag in the following user accounts and that according to Wiki policy, the tags "should not be added in the cases of accusations of sock puppetry which have not been proven, nor should they be added in the case of an legitimate alternate account, especially where the user may wish to maintain anonymity. Abuse of these tags will result in warning and potentially blocking."
::I have stated that I wish to remain anon and I have made it a point to clarify that I am the same person using several IPs to connect anonymously. They have provided no commentary at all - let alone specific evidence to their claims - as to why they continue to put these statements in these useraccount pages. And while they have stated that I have been disruptive, the only "disruption" I have provided (and the only evidence of any "disruption" they can point to) is about me insisting on remaining anonymous.
::The user accounts in question are as follows 198.97.67.59, 198.97.67.56, 198.97.67.58, 198.97.67.59, and 198.97.67.57.

::Thank you for addressing this at your earliest convenience.[[User:198.97.67.56|198.97.67.56]] 18:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to these issues, these admins have included the tags in the account for 71.74.209.82.
I believe this is an attempt to force me to stop using the anon option despite the fact that using the anon option is legal and that they can't specify any actions committed by me which have been abusive of this.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 20:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:I am sending this to the mediation cabal, please ignore.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 01:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AMER-C not a sysop] but have [[User:MER-C/monobook.js|a reversion script]] that gives me rollback controls. As for the cabal, you must be registered because only registered users can create non-talk pages. The shared IP tags weren't applied properly, since most of my directions were also inserted. I'll rectify this, because I did a WHOIS on you and found out exactly where you edit from. The shared account userboxes and sockpuppet notices are no longer necessary.

[[Special:Userlogin|Creating an account]] will get rid of this fuss extremely easily, then you wouldn't have to worry about dynamic IPs and we can't find out who you really are or where you come from without asking [[WP:RFCU|someone]].

WHOIS tells me that the two distinct IPs above are unrelated - one from Ohio and one from Virginia. I'll get rid of the notices [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 02:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::Thank you and I am strongly considering getting an account. Its just that I didn't feel like submitting to someone threatening or pushing me into it and I didn't really, and still don't, see a reason for it[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 03:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

----

Hello, MER-C I noticed that you have concluded that 71.74.209.82 and 198.97.67.?? are different people. I would like to point out the [[United Pentecostal Church International]] page, where the edit history and the discussion page make it clear that they are in fact the same person. A good many this individuals edits revolve around the use of Acts 2:38 in the Overview section. For example as 198.97.67.57 Revision as of 07:01, 27 May 2006 (restoring NPOV) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Pentecostal_Church_International&oldid=55409324] and as 71.74.209.82 Current revision (18:34, 6 August 2006) (Unsourced) . There are multiple similar examples.

From the discussion page it would also appear that they are one and the same:

Exhibit A)

''Seems that someone needs a lesson on what Wiki considers vandalism. "Wiki vandalism is generally defined as editing a wiki in a way that is intentionally disruptive or destructive. There are four generally acknowledged types of vandalism: deletion of legitimate information, insertion of nonsense or irrelevant content, addition of unwanted commercial links (spam), and policy violations specific to that wiki." As all articles on Wiki should be written with NPOV, deliberate persistant efforts to remove NPOV (and thus violate the NPOV policy) are an act of vandalism. Please stop.198.97.67.59 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)''

Exhibit B)

''I believe DCMGOV intended to post this here instead of in my personal talk space "Do NOT remove Acts 2:38 from the repentance section of the UPCI page again. If you don't agree with the UPCI doctrine, discuss it in the discussion page, but you cannot remove fundamental portions of the organization's doctrine simply because you do not like it." 71.74.217.83 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's my reply 1.) The philosophy of Wikipedia is against one person controlling the contents of an article by telling others what they can or can't or should or shouldn't post in it - only Wiki policy can do that 2.) My version of the article does not remove Acts 2:38 from the article''

Notice the similarities in tone. (71.74.217.83 leads to the same address in VA as 71.74.209.82)

Further 71.74.209.82 appears to acknowledge ownership of the other IP addresses in his/her [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-08-06|Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04 Admins attempting to force end of anon option]]

''I want to point out that these admins have provided no commentary with these tags providing specific verifiable evidence of abuse by myself in using these multiple IPs. The IPs disputed are 198.97.67.59, 198.97.67.56, 198.97.67.57, 198.97.67.58, and 71.74.209.82 The admins are Will Beback and Jossi.
Sources
71.74.209.82 01:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)''

At no time has he/she denied ownership of the other offending addresses. But appeared happy to allow you to reach that conclusion on your own, and failed to correct the misunderstanding.

In sum, there is clear evidence outside of the [[Illegal immigration to the United States]] page that these are in fact the same person.

Thanks [[User:Brimba|Brimba]] 06:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, looks like the IPs weren't as unrelated as I thought. On further inspection (using the City link at the bottom of an IP's talk page) are about 60km away from each other. The Virginia IP was registered to an Time Warner subsidary in Virginia. (compare [http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/city.ch?ip=71.74.217.83] [http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=198.97.67.56] and [http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Wright-Patterson+Air+Force+Base&ie=UTF8&ll=40.041284,-84.302216&spn=0.935684,2.738342&om=1] ). Therefore it is possible that they are the same person and given the evidence above it is likely. I think the correct conclusion to be reached is:

{{cquote|One of the employees at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base also edits Wikipedia at home with an IP of 71.74.209.82.}}

Not enough to put back the sockpuppet templates, but enough to place a notice somewhere on 71.74.209.82's user (talk) page about this issue. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 11:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

::Sorry to confuse you on that. I do post from the different IPs. I have not tried to mislead anyone on that fact. However, the Wright-Patterson IPs are shared by many other users as well.
To correct this confusion, I will no longer be posting from the WPAFB IPs.[[User:71.74.209.82|71.74.209.82]] 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== the thumbs up ==

[[Image:ThumbsUp.jpg|thumb|88px|left]] award goes to you for reverting an "opinion" that someone had added to mine. Thanks for keeping an eye on me and about a million others. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 16:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 03:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[Talk:Alliance for Aging Research/Temp]] ==

You identified [[Alliance for Aging Research]] as a copyvio. I just created a non-copyvio version at [[Talk:Alliance for Aging Research/Temp]]. [[User:TruthbringerToronto|TruthbringerToronto]] ([[User_talk:TruthbringerToronto|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/TruthbringerToronto|contribs)]] 06:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:I see you have recycled some of the old text, but that should be fine due to the small amount of it. Thanks. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

==Aussie pingu trivia==
From [[User talk:Aussie pingu]] you've quickly flagged up vandalism by this editor, who's now been indefinitely blocked for the account only being used for vandalism. AP contributed an article on [[St Francis of Assisi Primary School]] which appeared innocuous but not notable, so I've flagged it for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion accordingly. Thanks for your good word, ..[[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 09:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

==Hellsing (Miilenium)==

I don't know why, but for some reason you reverted my change and called it vandalism. I feel offended by this acussation because I was only doing my best to improve the article in question. Walter C. Dornez has an article elsewhere, so I didn't feel the need to repeat it elsewhere, hence why I linked to that page (hopefully I did it right). I would like to know why my edit was reverted, and if possible revert the edit you made so that I can continue with my contributions to the article. {{unsigned|81.159.8.54}}

: Oops, my bad. Just reverted myself. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. :) {{unsigned|81.159.8.54}}

== BOGUS REVERSION - MISTAKE? ==

Hi, you've just reverted some very important sentiments that I have made regarding a vabdal that is trying to become admin. Can you please tell me why you have done this? {{unsigned|86.29.114.156}}
:Woah, woah, woah. Calm down. Take a deep breath and stop shouting. If you've got problems, approach the admins or the reverting user civilly or you'll get blocked for being offensive. And anyway, Ryulong is a vandal fighter, just like I am. If you attack him just like you did, it says a lot about you and your intentions. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

::And now you are vandalising my talk page. Just as I thought. Go away sockpuppet! [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 10:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

==Thanks==

For reverting the vandalism to my userpage. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|Talk]] 10:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:You're welcome. Grr, I wish that vandal would go away. He's been here as well. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 10:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

== CSD G8 ==

Users need not have user pages in order to have talk pages. That said, I'm speedying [[User talk:Ger-Jan]] as an attack page (I did a translation and it says "You are stupid" in Dutch). [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] 13:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:Thought there was no such user, with no talk page nor welcome message. (Turns out the user had made 2 edits in 2 months.) [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 13:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

== Scissett Middle School ==

Thank you for nominating this school for deletion. Schools are not covered by this notice for speedy deletion so I have removed it. In general, articles on schools are considered notable and are not to be deleted.--Fil[[WP:EA|e]] [[User talk:Brendanconway|Éireann]] 13:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:I thought it was a vanity page, since the creator's only contributions have been on that page, etc. Oops. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 02:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Thanks ==

No Problem dude :) '''[[Special:Emailuser/Robomaeyhem|°≈§→]]''' [[User:Robomaeyhem|Robom]][[User:Robomaeyhem/Esperanza|æ]][[User:Robomaeyhem|yhem:]] [[User Talk:Robomaeyhem|'''T''']]/[[Special:Contributions/Robomaeyhem|←§≈°]] 06:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

== Your change to my user page ==
Hello. You recently reverted edits made by an IP address to my user page. I assume you thought it was vandalism. Actually it was just me tweaking a couple sections but forgetting to sign in. Thanks for watching out, though. - [[User:Square_pear|square_pear]] | [[User talk:Square_pear|talk]] 17:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

United Pentecostal Church International

2006-08-07T00:34:56Z

71.74.209.82: /* Overview */ unsourced

[[Image:upcilogo.jpg|thumb|150px|The UPCI logo.]]
The '''United Pentecostal Church International''' (UPCI) is a United States-based international [[Christian]] faith of the [[Pentecostal]] movement, and is headquartered in the [[St. Louis, Missouri|St. Louis]] suburb of [[Hazelwood, Missouri]].
The UPCI was formed in 1945 by a merger of the Pentecostal Church, Incorporated, and the Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ. The UPCI states the following about itself.<ref>{{cite web |publisher= United Pentecostal Church International|url=http://www.upci.org/about.asp|title=About Us|accessdate=2006-06-21}}</ref>;
* since it's formation in 1945, the UPCI has been one of the fastest growing denominations in North America, growing from 617 member churches in 1946, to over 4,300 member churches as of 2005.
* the UPCI in North America has over 9,000 licensed ministers
* reports a [[Sunday School]] attendance circa 650,000.
* the UPCI has a presence in 175 other nations with more than 22,500 licensed ministers, 28,300 churches and meeting places, 650 missionaries, and a foreign membership of roughly 3 million.
* total worldwide membership, including North America, is estimated to be over 4 million
==History==
When the [[Assemblies of God]] adopted the doctrine of the [[Trinity]] at its Fourth General Council in October 1916, the [[Oneness Pentecostals]] withdrew from the organization. Two months later, beginning in late December, Oneness ministers met in [[Eureka Springs, Arkansas]], and on January 2, 1917, they formed a [[Oneness Pentecostal]] organization called The General Assembly of the Apostolic Assemblies.

In late 1917 or early 1918 The General Assembly of the Apostolic Assemblies merged with the [[Pentecostal Assemblies of the World]] and held its first meeting in [[Eureka Springs, Arkansas]], later the same year. This organization adopted the name of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. In late 1924, the organization split over racial concerns. During 1925 three new organizations formed: The Apostolic Churches of Jesus Christ, The Pentecostal Ministerial Alliance, and Emmanuel's Church in Jesus Christ.

In 1927 two of the new organizations merged. Meeting in a joint convention in [[Guthrie]], [[Oklahoma]], Emmanuel's Church in Jesus Christ and The Apostolic Churches of Jesus Christ joined under the name The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. This merger, which united about 400 ministers, was celebrated at the next General Convention held in [[Port Arthur, Texas]], in October of 1928.

In 1931, a unity conference with representatives from four Oneness organizations met in [[Columbus, Ohio]], in an attempt to bring more [[Oneness]] organizations under the same banner. This attempt was partially successful. The Pentecostal Ministerial Alliance ministers voted to merge with The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, but the terms of the proposed merger were not accepted by the ministers of The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. A merger between The Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ and the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World was completed in November of 1931. The merged organizations adopted the name of The Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ.

In 1932, the Pentecostal Ministerial Alliance changed its name to The Pentecostal Church, Incorporated, to better reflect its organizational structure. Neither of the two remaining organizations attempted another merger until 1936, when The Pentecostal Church, Incorporated ministers voted to work toward a union with The Pentecostal Assemblies of Jesus Christ. Negotiations were unsuccessful. Eight years later, in 1944, the two organizations reopened negotiations which would eventually lead the to the formation of the present United Pentecostal Church International in 1945.

==UPCI doctrinal beliefs==
===Overview===
The UPCI's doctrinal views reflect the [[Holiness-Pentecostal]] movement, with some exceptions including the "second work of grace" and the Trinitarian formula of water baptism. The doctrine of the UPCI derives its central theology of salvation from Acts 2:38: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

====Repentance====
The UPCI teaches that [[repentance]] is essential to [[salvation]], as found in Luke 13:5. Repentance is defined as turning away from sin and turning toward God. According to the UPCI, true repentance requires forgiveness and cleansing of sins found in 1 John 1:9. As found in 2 Corinthians 2:10, members of the UPCI believe that repentance must be accompanied by Godly sorrow, as it is the motivator for true repentance. Repentance is also a prerequisite for receiving the Holy Ghost and speaking in Tongues (John 14:17; Acts 2:38). Lastly, there is a belief that the ability to repent is temporary and may only be accomplished while one is alive (Hebrews 9:27).<ref>{{cite web |publisher= United Pentecostal Church International|url=http://www.upci.org/doctrine/repent.asp|title=Except Ye Repent|accessdate=2006-06-21}}</ref>

====Baptism====
Baptism is a second essential component of UPCI doctrine. Members of the UPCI affirm a need for baptism as shown in Matthew 28:19 and point to Matthew 3:13-16 as evidence that even Jesus was baptized. The UPCI mode of baptism is complete immersion in water, completed in the name of Jesus Christ. This method of water baptism is a point at issue between Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals. Both sides include Matthew 28:19 to support their claims, with Oneness believers supporting 'Jesus Christ' and Trinitarian believers supporting "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," as it appears in Matthew 28:19. The UPCI believes that salvation cannot be complete without baptism, specifically without the pronouncement of the name of Jesus Christ over the proceeding.

====Speaking in tongues====
The UPCI embraces the classical [[Pentecostal]] view that speaking in tongues is the outward, observable, and audible evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. The UPCI holds that speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation and that speaking in tongues applies to all comers, regardless of race, culture, or language, which they interpret from Acts 2:38. The tongue becomes the vehicle of expression for the Holy Spirit (James 3), and to a member of the UPCI, it symbolizes God's complete control over the believer. Speaking in tongues should also be accompanied by inward changes. These can be found in Galatians 5:22-23, and are commonly referred to as "Fruits of the Spirit".

===The Bible===
The UPCI claims this of the the [[Bible]]: "The Bible is the only God-given authority which man possesses; therefore all doctrine, faith, hope, and all instructions for the church must be based upon and harmonize with the Bible" (Manual of the United Pentecostal Church, 19). According to the UPCI, the Bible is the [[Word of God]], and therefore inerrant and infallible. The UPCI rejects many extrabiblical writings (such as [[The Book of Mormon]] and the [[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]]), and views church creeds and articles of faith as the thinking of men, and therefore fallable in comparison to the Bible.

===Godhead===

The UPCI teaches that the one God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament as [[Jehovah]] revealed himself in His Son, [[Jesus Christ]]. Thus Jesus Christ was and is God. For the UPCI, Jesus is the one true God manifested in flesh, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (John 1:1-14; I Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9).

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God and one ''person'', rather than one God in three persons as in the doctrine of the [[Trinity]]. The UPCI believes their conception of the Godhead is true to early Christianity's strict [[monotheism]], and views the trinitarian concept of God as scripturally incorrect, compromising the biblical teaching of God as one.

This is a major difference between the UPCI and and other Pentecostals and evangelicals, such as the [[Assemblies of God]].

===Holiness===
The UPCI holds that salvation is accomplished by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and not by works (Titus 3:5). The UPCI teaches a code of conduct based upon what it believes to be scriptural teaching, although detractors allege that many of these beliefs are mandated by church officials. The UPCI professes holiness standards as a privilege and that obedience to those standards is for the benefit of the individual. This includes beliefs that women should not cut their hair and should wear dresses or skirts, not pants, according to a scriptural mandate to "Not wear that which pertaineth to a man" (Deuteronomy 22:5) and "adorn [yourself] in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety" (1 Timothy 2:8-10). Men and women alike are discouraged from wearing jewelry, scripturally "gold, or pearls, or costly array" (1 Timothy 2:8-10).

One contested holiness viewpoint in the UPCI involves ownership of a television set. Licensed UPCI ministers are not allowed to have televisions in their homes. This view has been passed down to the local congregations through the ministers, who frown on their membership possessing televisions. In the same vein, many ministers do not want their constituency attending movies or going movie theaters. These teachings vary from church to church according to liberality.

==UPCI-affiliated educational institutions==
At the national level, the UPCI supports eight educational institutions:

*[http://www.apostolic.org/ Apostolic Bible Institute] in [[St. Paul, Minnesota]]
*[http://www.clc.edu/ Christian Life College] in [[Stockton, California]]
*[http://gatewaycollege.net/ Gateway College of Evangelism] in [[Florissant, Missouri]]
*[http://www.indianabiblecollege.org/ Indiana Bible College] in [[Indianapolis, Indiana]]
*[http://www.jcm.edu/ Jackson College of Ministeries] in [[Jackson, Mississippi]]
*[http://www.northeastchristiancollege.com/ Northeast Christian College] in [[Fredericton, New Brunswick]], [[Canada]]
*[http://www.texasbiblecollege.com/ Texas Bible College] in [[Lufkin, Texas]]
*[http://www.ugst.org Urshan Graduate School of Theology] in [[Hazelwood, Missouri]]

Many districts and churches also support educational institutions in their cities and states. These efforts are oftentimes admininstered by the local church.

==Notable people within the UPCI==
*Daniel Seagraves Ed. D., author, and professor at Christian Life College.
*[[Dr. David K. Bernard]], author, and president of Urshan Graduate School of Theology. He is considered to be an expert on Oneness Pentecostalism.
*Lee Stoneking, a well-known minister in the UPCI. [http://www.leestoneking.net/ Lee Stoneking's Website]
*Rev. Kenneth Haney, author, and General Superintendent of the UPCI

==External links==
===[http://www.upci.org/ Official website of the UPCI]===

===Divisions in the UPCI===
*[http://www.upci.org/am/ Apostolic Man]
*[http://www.upci.org/editorial/index.htm Editorial]
*[http://foreignmissions.com/ Foreign Missions]
*[http://www.homemissionsdivision.com/ Home Missions]
*[http://www.ladiesministries.org/ Ladies Ministries]
*[http://www.thereishopefortoday.com/ Media Missions]
*[http://www.pentecostalpublishing.com/ Pentecostal Publishing House]
*[http://stewardship.upci.org/ Stewardship]
*[http://www.sundayschooldivision.org/ Sunday School]
*[http://www.upci.org/wap/ Word Aflame Publications]
*[http://www.wnop.org/ World Network of Prayer]
*[http://www.pentecostalyouth.org/ Youth Division]

===Links to UPCI churches===
*[http://clcroseburg.org Christian Life Center] in [[Roseburg]], [[Oregon]]
*[http://abundantlifecares.com Abundant Life Tabernacle] in [[Fort Wayne, Indiana]]
*[http://www.apostolics.org Apostolic Church] in [[North Little Rock, Arkansas]]
*[http://www.ahfn.org Apostolic Home Fellowship Network] in [[Murray, Kentucky]]
*[http://www.alcgeorgetown.org/ Apostolic Lighthouse Pentecostals] In [[Georgetown, Texas]]
*[http://calvarytabindy.org Calvary Tabernacle] in [[Indianapolis, Indiana]]
*[http://www.capitalcommunity.ca/ Capital Community Church] in [[Fredericton, New Brunswick]], [[Canada]]
*[http://www.tulsa1stpc.com/ First Pentecostal Church of Tulsa] in [[Tulsa, Oklahoma]]
*[http://pentecostalsofaugusta.net First United Pentecostal Church of Augusta] in [[Augusta, Maine]]
*[http://www.neupc.org Nebraska District UPC] [[Nebraska]]
*[http://www.newlifepc.com New Life Pentecostal Church] in [[Olathe, Kansas]]
*[http://www.nl-t.org New Life Tabernacle] in [[Beaumont, Texas]]
*[http://www.newlifetabernacless.org New Life Tabernacle] in [[Sand Springs, Oklahoma]]
*[http://www.parkwaychurch.ws Parkway Apostolic Church] in [[Oak Creek, Wisconsin]]
*[http://royalwoodupc.org Pentecostals at Royalwood, The] in [[Houston, Texas]]
*[http://www.thepentecostals.org Pentecostals of Alexandria, The] in [[Alexandria, Louisiana]]
*[http://www.rockofjesus.org Rock of JESUS Church] in [[Elkhorn, Wisconsin]]
*[http://www.truthtabernacle.org Truth Tabernacle] in [[Springfield, Missouri]]
*[http://www.prayerhome.com/ United Pentecostal Church] in [[Bangalore]], [[Karnataka]], [[South India]]
*[http://www.firstchurch.com/ The First Church of Pearland] in [[Pearland, Texas]]
*[http://www.lighthouseupc.org Lighthouse UPC] in [[Omaha, Nebraska]]
*[http://www.greaterlighthouse.com/ Greater Lighthouse Pentecostal Church] in [[Madisonville, KY]]
[[Category:Christian denominations of North America]]
[[Category:Christian denominations]]
[[Category:Christian evangelicalism]]
[[Category:Pentecostal denominations]]
[[Category:Protestantism]]

==Notes and references==
<div class="references-small">

<references />
</div>

Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-07T00:27:55Z

71.74.209.82: /* Illegal immigration economics */ assuming studies on immigration apply to illegal immigration is independent research

{{mergeto|United States immigration debate}}

{{Cleanup-references}}
'''Illegal immigration to the United States''' refers to the migration of people across the [[border|national borders]] of the [[United States]] that is in violation of U.S. [[Immigration law|immigration]] and [[United States nationality law|nationality law]]. The terms ''illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented alien, undocumented immigrant'', and ''undocumented worker'', are common terms used to refer to persons residing in the United States without either U.S. [[citizenship]] or a valid immigration status. {{fn|1}}.
In the United States the term ‘’undocumented alien’’ typically refers to a foreign national who entered the country without valid travel documents or that overstayed the limited period of time granted upon entry. For example, a tourist who enters with a valid [B1 visa] and is granted a stay of 15 days and remains in-country for 30 days is an ‘’undocumented alien’’. The holder of a valid B1 (tourist) visa is barred from accepting employment. By accepting employment this hypothetical tourist becomes an ‘’undocumented worker’’ (whether he is an ‘’undocumented alien’’ or not). Not all ‘’undocumented aliens’’ are ‘’undocumented workers’’. For example, the visas overstay tourist who doesn’t work or the illegal crossing stay-at-home wife.
{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrants Info||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Education Profile||Number||Percent||
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Less then 12 yr.||align="right"|6,700,000||67.0%||
|-
!align="right"|High School||align="right"|3,000,000||30.0%||
|-
!align="right"|College Graduate||align="right"|300,000||3.0%||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Total Illegal Pop.||align="right"|12,000,000 ||Jan 2006||
|-
!align="right"|Total Working||align="right"|7,500,000
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Caught|| align="right"|202,842||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Deported|| align="right"|88,895||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Caught and Released|| align="right"|1,010,000+||2005||
|-
!align="right"|Illegal Immigrants/year|| align="right"|1,500,000+||Total||
|-
!align="right"|Voluntary returns/year||align="right"| - 200,000+||2005
|-
!align="right"|Change of Status/year||align="right"| - 600,000+||2005
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Net Increase/year||align="right"| 700,000+||Illegal Immigrants||
|-
|colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] A Description of the Immigrant Population [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2] 
|}

==Methods used to enter the U.S. illegally==
===Overview===
According to the 1997 report issued by the Binational Study on Migration and commissioned by the U.S. and Mexican governments,
* One-third or 2.3 to 2.4 million of the Mexican-born US residents are unauthorized, despite the legalization of two million unauthorized Mexicans in 1987-88, and subsequent legal immigration that unified their families.
*The total number of people from all countries who entered illegally or overstayed their visas in 1996 was estimated by the INS to be 275,000
*US sources suggest that the number of Mexican-born persons increased by two million between 1990 and 1996, and the binational study estimated that legal immigrants were the smallest part of the increase, 510,000, followed by unauthorized, 630,000, and then 760,000 SAWs and their family members. <ref>Migration News Vol. 13 No. 3, December 2006 [http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=1329_0_5_0 Migration News website] Retrieved Aug 2006</ref>

Three years later, in 2000, [[United States presidential election, 2000|US Presidential]] candidate [[Patrick Buchanan]] ([[Reform Party of the United States of America|Reform Party]]) asserted during and interview on [[National Public Radio]] that half a million people a year (a little less than double the figure the Binational Study stated)
are entering the USA illegally.<ref>Patrick Buchanan, National Public Radio interview, "Talk of the Nation", May 30, 2000). "Our levels of immigration now in the last 30 years have been enormous. It’s almost over a million legal immigrants a year, and half a million illegals who come here and stay." </ref>

According to the [[Pew Hispanic Center]] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. By 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. <ref>Rise, Peak and Decline: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004, Pew Hispanic Center [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53 Available online]</ref>

Another report of the Pew Hispanic center, cites that 45% of unauthorized migrants, had initially visas for limited amounts of time, bur over-stayed their visas, and that a small percentage of these entered the country from Mexico by means of a [[Border Crossing Card]]. <ref>Pew Hispanic Center, ''Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population '' (May 2006) [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]"As much as 45% of the total unauthorized migrant population entered the country with visas that allowed them to reside in the U.S. for a limited amount of time. Known as "overstayers", these migrants became part of the unauthorized population when they remained in the country after their visas had expired. Another small share of the unauthorized migrant population entered the country legally from Mexico using a Border Crossing Card, a document that allows short visits limited to the border region, and then violated the terms of admission. The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."</ref>

====Illegal border crossing====
{{sectNPOV}}
That same article goes on to state, "The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."
[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]
meaning that they crossed a border without passing possible criminal or health inspection or having a valid passport and [[Visa (document)|visa]] inspected by an immigration officer at a Port of Entry (POE). It is estimated that over a million people cross the border illegally each year, most of whom are of Mexican origin{fact}. The rest are labeled "Other Than Mexicans" (OTM), of whom a majority are [[Central America]]ns{fact}.

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a [[misdemeanor]] for the first offense and a [[felony]] for subsequent violations{{fact}}. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the future{{fact}}. Immigrants who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. [[H.R. 4437]] would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

According to a report by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary on 1997, "Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling."<ref>[ http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM ORDER SECURITY AND DETERRING ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary</ref>
Another large scale multi-million dollar criminal operations connected to illegal immigration is identity theft. [http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html]
The higher crime rates associated with all this traffic has led to extensive efforts on the part of individual sheriffs and communities trying to prevent further damage to their property and communities. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html], [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html], [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss], [[http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]

In 2006 the number of apprehensions on the border is almost the same as last year through 16 July 2006 at 936,000 [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20060722-9999-1n22crossers.html ]. However, according to many US Border Patrol agents, they were instructed by their leadership to "keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited" as one US Border Patrol agent put it [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm].
Some of the traffic has spread away from the dangerous Tucson districts deserts where over a hundred illegal immigrants have died so far this year compared to 153 in 2005. [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060722/images/border.pdf]

[[Image:ElPaso-Juarez-EO.JPG|thumb|right|200px|El Paso (top) and Ciudad Juárez (bottom) seen from earth orbit; the Rio Grande is the thin line separating the two cities through the middle of the photograph.]]
[[Image:TJ Border Beach.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Beach at Border Field State Park near [[San Ysidro, California]]. (Tire tracks from Border Patrol jeeps are visible on the beach.)]]

Border Patrol activity is concentrated around big border cities such as [[San Diego, California|San Diego]] and [[El Paso, Texas|El Paso]] which already have [[separation barriers]] and extensive Border Agent coverage. Each state in the United States has a [[United States National Guard|National Guard]] organization that could, in principal, be placed on the border at a state governor's discretion to assist with border security; many states also have a backup to the National Gurard called the [[State Defense Force]] that could, in an emergency, also be activated for this purpose. Arizona and New Mexico have currently declared the counties that border [[Mexico]] to be under serious duress caused by uncontrolled illegal immigrant traffic, thereby enabling governors to deploy National Guardsmen to the international border. Arizona has exercised this option but New Mexico has not.

In an article published by Renew America, a website which defines itself as a "Alan Keyes' website for grassroots activism -- designed to foster a nationwide movement to restore America to its founding ideals", former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard asserts that "The whole U.S.-Mexico border could be sealed with as few as 100 helicopters equipped with FLIR (forward looking infrared) scopes, and a few hundred men equipped with state of the art sensors, scopes and other electronics..." [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]

See also [[United States–Mexico border]], [[United States-Canada border]].

=====From countries with no visa agreements=====
Immigrants from nations that do not have automatic visa agreements, or who would not otherwise qualify for a visa, sometimes cross the borders illegally. Individuals from [[North Korea]], [[Libya]], [[Cuba]], [[Syria]], [[Sudan]], and [[Iran]] are required to submit to strict questioning from U.S. officials before their applications are processed. Their applications take longer to process than those for visitors and immigrants from other countries. [http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1300.html]

Often, these individuals enter from a land border using falsified documentation from a third country. For instance, [[Ahmed Ressam]], a member of [[Al Qaeda]], originally from [[Algeria]], entered [[Canada]] with a falsified [[France|French]] passport. Once in Canada, he procured a false Canadian passport to enter the United States. In the case of Cuba, the U.S. offers political asylum to many Cubans, but they first must reach U.S. soil. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//shows/trail/etc/fake.html]

====Visa or Border Crossing Card overstayers====

A visa overstayer is someone who has entered the United States legally and then illegally overstayed his or her visa or violated the restrictions on Border Crossing Card (BCC) or laser visa. Fraudulent and forged visa and BCC passes are included in this category. An estimated average 40-60% of all illegal immigrants to the U.S. entered this way. The number of overstayers varies considerably from country to country depending on the location of the country, the cultural, political, social and economic conditions in a given country in a given time. The PEW Hispanic institute reported [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf] that the INS had developed statistics that showed 3.2% of all Central and South America visas are overstayed. A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study gives estimates for all countries showing that China, India, Korea, and the Philippines had violation rates as high as 8%.[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] In general the poorer the country they came from the more likely the foreign visitor was to violate their visa.

GAO estimated that 40-60% of all Mexican illegal immigrants got here by violating their border crossing document's conditions. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] In operation Tarmac where ICE and DHS checked airport employees for legal employment they found 27% of the over 4900 violators found were visa or BCC violators. In one of the rare ICE check ups on a grocery chain they found that over 57% of the several hundred violators were visa overstayers or BCC violators ([http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf| Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered Defense]) patrol officials believe Visa violator numbers would increase if it became more difficult to illegally sneak across the border as illegal border crossers switched techniques. About 33% of all Central American illegal immigrants came by overstaying their visa with the rest traveling through Mexico to reach the border and then crossing illegally. At lest 95+% of all illegal South American, European, and Asians got here by overstaying their visa. (The other ~5% represent illegal immigrants smuggled by ship or plane) An increasing number of illegal immigrants are now flying to Mexico or Canada and then crossing the border illegally by foot or car. The ICE agents on the border report a 52% increase in border violators caught that are Other Than Mexican (OTM). The two main sources of illegal visa violators are Mexico and Canada which the U.S. has a large amount of cross border traffic with. Other estimates done by the GAO show that the overstayers and BCC violators from Mexico alone in the year 2001 may exceed 2,000,000 /year. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/border_crossing_entry_data/us_mexico/index.html] reported that in 2003 (the last year of available statistics) there were 79,000,000 and 245,000,000 border crossings between Canada and Mexico respectively and the US. The tourist bureau shows that there were less Mexicans (as reported by their government) doing all this traffic than their were Canadians (as reported by their government).[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] Mexico has roughly three times the population of Canada. The latest ICE statistics show that they captured 30,000 Brazilians after they crossed the U.S. Mexican border illegally for the first time in 2004. Two of the terrorists behind the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] were visa overstayers. The federal government historically has not extensibly checked up on visa holders once they are in the country; but visa checks has been used extensively after 9 September 2001 to check up on illegal immigrants from countries with large populations sympathic to terrorists. Several hundred visa violators were deported and several thousand more left voluntarily rather than face deportation hearings. {{fact}}

To help improve the lack of good information on visa overstayers the new US-VISIT program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States as well as requiring electronic readable passports containing this information. Information collected is checked against lookout databases to ensure that known or suspected terrorists, criminals, and previous U.S. immigration law violators are not admitted. [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-11_Feb05.pdf] and then checked against their eventual departure. US-VISIT entry procedures have been operational in the secondary inspection areas of the 50 busiest land border ports of entry since December 29, 2004, and are also in place at 115 airports and 15 seaports.[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4858] Early in 2007 the DHS is hoping to replace the laser visa or boundary crossing cards with People Access Security Service (PASS) card, as a secure identity document for people traveling to or from Canada or Mexico. [http://www.thebta.org/syndicate/news/archives/cat_us-visit.html] These would include Radio Frequency Identification Data (RFID) for ease of transit and security.

Visa overstayers violators tend to be somewhat more educated and be better off financially than those who walked crossed the border illegally. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0205/p01s03-usju.html] The financial and education status of the thousands of BCC or laser visa violators is unknown; but is probably very similar to the illegal border crossers who walked across since they both come from the same population base.

One common means of visa overstaying is coming to the U.S. on a student visa and not going to school or not leaving the country after finishing school. [http://ktla.trb.com/la-me-visa22may22,0,2677069.story?coll=ktla-home-3] The number of foreign students in the United States is over 600,000.

==Profile summaries of illegal immigrants==
<center>
{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"
!align=“center”! colspan=8 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Profile Summaries of Illegal Immigrants January 2006
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
||Job Category||% of Illegal Immigrant||% of Native -1 w/8+ yr sch.||% of Average Native||# Illegal Immigrant||# Native 8+ yr sch.||# Average Native
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Managerial / Self Employed||1.50%||5.9%||32.2%||108,000||758,000||33,810,000
|-
!align=“right”|Retail / Business||4.90%||15.2%||29.2%||352,800||1,952,700||30,660,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Private||1.20%||1.0%||0.3%||86,400||128,500||315,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farm Mgr||1.60%||1.6%||1.1%||115,200||205,600||1,155,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Retail||18.20%||20.3%||10.3%||1,310,400||2,607,900||10,815,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farming -2||17.50%||2.9%||1.0%||1,260,000||372,600||1,050,000
|-
!align=“right”|Production||22.0%||20.1%||11.9%||1,584,000||2,582,200||12,495,000
|-
!align=“right”|Construction||33.0%||33.1%||14.0%||2,376,000||4,252,400||14,700,000
|-
|||||||||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Total # Working||7,500,000||12,847,000||108,000,000||||||
|-
!align="right"|Labor rate of Participation -3||82%||46.3%||66.30%||||||
|-
!align="right"|Unemployment Rate||7.0%||7.0%||4.10%||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Country Profile||||||Sex / age Profile||||||Worker profile||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Mexican|| 6,840,000 ||57%||men 18-39||5,300,000||43.7%||align="right"|4,500,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Latin & Central Amer.|| align="right"|3,000,000 ||25%||women 18-39||align="right"|3,500,000 ||29.1%|| align="right"|2,000,000 ||60%
|-
!align="right"|Asia|| 1,080,000 ||9%||more than 40|| 1,300,000 ||10.7%||align="right"|1,000,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Europe + Canada|| 720,000 ||6%||less than 18||align="right"|2,040,000 ||17.0%||align="right"|200,000 ||10%
|-
!align="right"|Rest of World|| 480,000 ||4%||Born / yr.||align="right"|300,000||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Totals Jan 2006||12,100,000 ||||Total Pop.||12,400,000||Total Working||7,500,000
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / year||align="right"|700,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||See Note 7
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / Month||align="right"|60,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||
|-
|}
</center>

# Native Population that most closely matches Illegal immigrant population is workers that never graduated from high school.
# Farm work is the only job category that illegal immigrants uniquely fill; but it does have a 30,000 H2-A visa program for it!
# Rate of Participation is fraction of total population seeking work
# Average Education of illegal immigrants may be less if the ~30% Central American's are included.
# How many criminals turn around after deportation and return is unknown; but it is significant that ICE catchs more than they deport.
# Estimated number may be low by several hundred thousand
# Other estimates of net increase are over 850,000 illegal immigrants / year.

Information Sources:

*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population
*[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2]A Description of the Immigrant Population
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm] Labor Participation less than High School
* [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1204.html] Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't
*[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/AnnualReportEnforcement2004.pdf] Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2004
*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/16.pdf] The Labor Force Status of Short-Term Unauthorized Workers
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf] Labor Statistics

==Illegal immigration economics==
The economics of illegal immigration are a highly contentious issue with much conflicting information presented. In 1990 the Congress appointed a bipartisan [[Commission on Immigration Reform]] to review the nation's policies and laws and to recommend changes. Information about the commission and its reports are available at http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/. In turn, the commission in 1995 asked the National Research Council of the National Science Foundation to convene a panel of experts to assess the demographic, economic, and fiscal consequences of immigration. The panel was asked to lay a scientific

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-

! colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Education, Income and Taxes||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||Asia||Latin America||Other||U.S. / CA
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align =“right”|Years of Education *||14.2||14.7||9.2||12+||14.4
|-
!align =“right”|Household Income *||$42k||$57k||$32k||$42k||42k
|-
!align =“right”|Effective Federal tax rate **||18.7%||22%||5%||18.7%||18.7%
|-
!align =“right”|Effective State tax rate ***||10%||12%||9%||10%||10.9%
|-
!align =“right”|Average Federal taxes ||$7.9k||$12.5k||$1.6k||$7.9k||$7.9k
|-
!align =“right”|Average State taxes||$4.2k||$6.8k||$2.9||$4.2k||$4.5k
|-
|colspan=6|<hr>

|-
|colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' * Census data [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/effect2004/effect2004.html] **Average federal tax data from CBO estimates of effective Federal tax rates [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] ***State taxes are from California Statistical Abstract [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/STAT-ABS/toc.htm] Note: Most of the Federal and state taxes are paid by households earning significantly more than average.

|}

foundation for policymaking on some specific Immigration issues. [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/1.html]
The panel consisted of over 15 well respected professors from highly ranked universities [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The National Science Foundation panels charge was to address three key questions:
# What is the effect of immigration on the future size and composition of the U.S. population?
# What is the influence of immigration on the overall economy?
# What is the fiscal impact of immigration on federal, state, and local governments?
The report by 15+ researchers was issued after 3 years study was called “The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration” (1997) Edited by James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, ISBN 0-309-06356-6. The book is available on line at [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The enclosed table summarizes some of the National Academy of Sciences main conclusions.

Previous studies (and many subsequent} of the fiscal impacts of immigration were found to have serious deficiencies. Indeed in 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available. Many of these represented not science but advocacy from both sides of the immigration debate. These studies often offered an incomplete accounting of either the full list of taxpayer costs and benefits by ignoring some programs and taxes while including others. More important, the conceptual foundation of this research was rarely explicitly stated, offering opportunities to tilt the research toward the desired result. [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/2.html]

'''"As long as there is a virtually unlimited supply of potential immigrants, the nation must make choices on how many to admit and who they should be."''' National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1997.

{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| National Science Foundation Immigrant Economics Federal State Local Net Annual Fiscal Impact per Household [1997]||
|-
| colspan=12|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||%||Asia||%||Latin America||%||Other||%||All||% ||Total Cost *
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>
|--
!align =“right”|California||$1,631||26%||$1,081||25%|| ($7,206)||43%||$3,313||6%||($2.206)||100%|| ($20.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449||26%||$2,022||25%|| ($5,625)||43%||$3,052||6%|| ($1,613)||100%|| ($15.0) billion 
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrant Economics **
|-
!align =“right”|California||$1,631 ||6%||$1,081 ||9%|| ($7,206)||81%||$3,313 ||4%|| ($5,509)||100%|| ($22.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449 ||6%||$2,022 ||9%|| ($5,625)||81%||$3,052 ||4%|| ($4,225)||100%|| ($17.0) billion 
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>

|-
|colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' ''The New Americans'', National Science Foundation Table 6.4, pg 284[http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/284.html] * Total costs calculated for all U.S. immigrants, legal and illegal, 9.166 million households 1995 ** No adjustments for changes since 1995, assumes 4 million illegal households, percent distribution from Pew 
|}

One study put the cost to the federal government at $2,700/household [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html] On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal government are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Still another study put the net costs to California residents at $433/household for European/Canadian immigrants, $1,240/household for Asian immigrants and $8,182/household for Latin American workers [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/161.html TABLE 4-7a Net Fiscal Impacts by Nativity of Householder] pg 160-1. These are the costs calculated for all immigrants legal and illegal. The costs for illegal immigrants are significantly higher since they have even less education, earn even less income and often avoid paying even the small taxes they are elgible for.

Madeleine Cosman contends that the requirement of hospitals to offer service to illegal aliens regardless of the alien's ability to pay has led to many hospitals running a deficit and being forced to close.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf] Also, free public education is extended to all children in the U.S. regardless of their citizen status. The matricula consular and passports are usually considered legal identification by many police agencies and governments.

Nearly all modern developed societies like Sweden, Canada and the United States heavily subsidize the cost of all government services for low income people by heavily taxing the higher income people. In the United states the effective federal tax rate considering all federal taxes as calculated by the Congressional Budget office runs from 4.8% for the bottom quintile [0-20%](avg. income = $34k) to 25% for the last quintile [80-100%] of income households. The bottom two income quintiles, with exemptions, are nearly exempt from all income tax and social security taxes are heavily subsidized. Many illegal workers claim they have income tax witheld not bothering to mention it is nearly always negligibly small.[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] The state's tax systems vary more but nearly always tax the higher income people much more than the lower income people.

==2004 illegal immigration debate==
{{main|United States immigration debate}}
In 2004, [[United States]] [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] proposed a [[guest worker]] program to absorb migrant laborers who would otherwise come to the U.S. as [[illegal alien]]s. However, the details were left to legislators. In 2005, the [[United States Congress|Congress]] began creating legislation to change the current [[illegal immigration]] policies. The legislation approved by the U.S. [[House of Representatives]] led to massive protests.

See also [[2006 United States immigration reform protests]].

==Legal issues==

===Legal and political status===

===Citizenship and the children of immigrants===
Before passage of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], in 1865 after the conclusion of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], the United States commonly granted citizenship on the basis of [[jus soli]]. The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to protect newly emancipated [[freedmen|former slaves]], and in keeping with the jus soli tradition of the Republic has been interpreted by the [[United States Supreme Court]], in precedent set by ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'' in 1898, to cover everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents, with the exception of the children of diplomats. The decision in ''Wong Kim Ark'' upheld the ''jus soli'' which had often been practiced before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In short, the Court found that the 14th Amendment re-affirmed ''jus soli''. ''Wong Kim Ark'' did not overturn or weaken ''Elk v. Wilkins''; it simply defined ''jus soli''. The Court found that Wong Kim Ark, having been born to Chinese citizens, who were lawfully residing within the United States, and with the intention of amicably obeying its laws, was a citizen of the United States. Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly not''' citizens:
* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Children born to [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the [[Indian Citizenship Act of 1924]])
The following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly''' citizens:
* Children born to US citizens
* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people, and obeying its laws.

Under these rulings, the citizenship status of the U.S.-born children of [[illegal immigrant]]s is in the same gray area as people born in foreign countries of foreign parents - that is, neither ruling explicitly denies or grants them citizenship. Various aspects of both ''Elk v. Wilkins'' and ''Wong Kim Ark'' lend reasoning that such children are not US citizens. ''Wong Kim Ark'' is often cited as granting the children of illegal aliens US citizenship, but the ruling is explicit in that it applies to the children of aliens who are legally within the United States. Some may even argue that it implicitly denies them citizenship by doing so. However, in terms of Supreme Court rulings, or the rulings of any court, implicit is meaningless. The ''status quo'' is that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens, and it will remain that way until government policy changes or is challenged, and the Supreme Court inevitably makes an explicit ruling.

Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a [[constitutional amendment]]. The proposed changes are usually one of the following:
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or [[permanent resident]] (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States (requires an Act of Congress, probably challenged to the Supreme Court).

Representative [[Nathan Deal]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] of [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], introduced legislation in [[2005]] to assert that U.S.-born children are only "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (and therefore eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment) if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Similarly, Representative [[Ron Paul]] of [[Texas]] has introduced a constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Neither of these measures has come to a vote. Even if Rep. Deal's legislation were passed by Congress, it would likely be struck down by the courts based on the precedent established in ''U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark'', which allows for the US born children of lawful visitors to be citizens as well. The issue remains controversial, reflecting both tensions about immigration and disputes about the appropriate balance of power between the courts and the Congress.

Children of families where at least one parent is an illegal immigrant are sometimes referred to as ''[[Anchor baby|anchor babies]]'' because once the illegal family's mother gives birth to the baby inside the U.S., the baby is said to "anchor" them to the U.S.. Legally the illegal parent or parents can still be deported so the anchor is more perceived than real. However, some illegal immigrant advocates and some of the children with parents of mixed legal immigration status feel the term "Anchor Baby" is [[pejorative]]. Some prefer the term "Permanently Residing Under Color Of Law," or "PRUCOL." PRUCOL is a broadly-defined status which covers a variety of situations, including, but not limited to, those persons who are appealing for an adjustment of status as refugee, or persons who are awaiting hearings to decide status and final legal disposition of their case. There are an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 children per year born to parents of mixed legal immigration status.{{fact}}

===Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986===
The [[Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]] (IRCA) made the hiring of an individual without documents an offense for the first time. Enforcement has been lax, but major businesses have often been found to use illegal immigrants. The act is somewhat redundant since the forging of government documents (fake immigration documents or providing falsified social security numbers) is already a felony, and for most companies such documents must be provided to the government in its tax filings. However, the government does not notify those whose identities have been stolen for the falsified social security numbers, thus making it difficult to estimate the extent of the problem. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/]

===Legal cases===
Some major companies have been accused of hiring undocumented workers.

* [[Tyson Foods]] was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its [[chicken]] packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee acquitted the company after evidence was presented that [[Tyson Foods]] went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.
* [[Wal-Mart]] was convicted of using illegal sub contracted [[janitor|janitorial]] workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge or permission.
* [[Philippe Kahn]], who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company [[Borland International]] without ever getting [[United States Permanent Resident Card|proper legal status]].

===Use of military to defend border===
See [[United States immigration debate]]

===Immigration with and without quotas===
The immigration quota system was first expanded with the [[Emergency Quota Act]] of 1921 which was used to reduce the influx of East and Southern European immigrants who were coming to the country in large numbers from the turn of the century. This immigration was further reduced by the [[Immigration Act of 1924]] which was structured to maintain the cultural and ethnic traditions of the United States.

There has never been a quota for Jews or any other religious group, only for people from specific countries. The waiting list for the few available immigration spots grew enormously in the 1930s in the U.S. and throughout the free world that was accepting any immigration. In the 1930's the number of Jewish immigrant applicants seeking visa to the U.S. alone exceeded the quota for all of Germany. [[Adolf Hitler]] started his [[Holocast]] program in the 1930's that ultimately led to the death of over 10,000,000 people including 6,000,000 Jews. The [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] administration had nearly shut down immigration during the decade of the [[Great Depression of 1929]]. In 1929 there were 279,678 immigrants recorded and in 1933 there were only 23,068 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. By 1939 recorded immigrants had crept back up to 82,998 but then the advent of World War II drove it back down to 23,725 in 1943 increasing slowly to 38,119 by 1945 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. After 1946 about 600,000 of Europe's Displaced Person (DP's) refugees were admitted under special laws outside the country quotas, and in the 1960s and 1970s large numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/] were admitted under special laws outside all quotas. Congress passed the [[Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965]] which esssentially removed all nation-specific quotas, while retaining an overall quota, and included immigrants from Mexico and the Western Hemisphere for the first time with their own quotas. It also put a large part of immigration, so-called family reunification, outside the quota system. This dramatically changed the number, type and composition of the new arrivals from mostly European, to predominantly poor [[Latino]] and [[Asian]]. It also dramatically increased the number of illegal immigrants as many poorer people now had family or friends in the U.S. that attracted them there. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] In 1986, the [[Immigration Reform and Control Act]] (IRCA) was passed, creating amnesty for about 3,000,000 illegal immigrants already in the United States. Critics believe IRCA just intensified the illegal immigration flow as those granted amnesty illegally brought more of their friends and family into the U.S.. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

Without quotas on large segments of the immigration flow, legal immigration to the U.S. surged and soon became largely family based "Chain immigration" where familys brought in a never ending chain of off quota new immigrant family members. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States are now at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000. Net Illegal immigration has also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970's, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980's to over 500,000 per year in the 1990's to over 700,000 per year in the 2000's. Total illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf], [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html])

See also:[[Immigration to the United States]]

===Other===
There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics.
* During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents.
* [[Linda Chavez]], [[Zoe Baird]] and [[Tom Tancredo]] are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "[[Nannygate]]". In Tancredo's case, a home contractor allegedly hired illegal aliens.

==Historical context==
Every wave of immigration into the United States has faced fear and hostility, especially during times of economic hardship, political turmoil, or war: in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, one of our nation's first immigration laws, to keep out all people of Chinese origin; during the "Red Scare" of the 1920s, thousands of foreign-born people suspected of political radicalism were arrested and brutalized; many were deported without a hearing; and in 1942, 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned in camps until the end of World War II.
===Chinese experience===
In 1882 the [[Chinese Exclusion Act (United States)|Chinese Exclusion Act]] had cut off nearly all [[China|Chinese]] immigration. The first laws creating a [[quota]] for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers. Ngai (2003) shows that the new laws were the beginning of mass illegal immigration, because they created a new class of persons - illegal aliens - whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility. This contradiction challenged received notions of sovereignty and democracy in several ways. First, the increase in the number of illegal entries created a new emphasis on control of the nation's borders - especially the long Canadian border. Second, the application of the deportation laws gave rise to an oppositional political and legal discourse, which imagined "deserving" and "undeserving" illegal immigrants and, therefore, just and unjust deportations. These categories were constructed out of modern ideas about crime, sexual morality, the family, and race. In the 1930s federal deportation policy became the object of legal reform to allow for administrative discretion in deportation cases. Just as restriction and deportation "made" illegal aliens, administrative discretion "unmade" illegal aliens. Administrative law reform became an unlikely site where problems of national belonging and inclusion played out.

===History of border security===
For a period of time in the 1990s U.S. Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal aliens and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR infrared devices, and helicopters. In conjunction with the U.S. Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. Sher Zieve claims this was very effective but temporary as the illegal traffic resumed as soon as the military withdrew.[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]. After the [[September 11, 2001 attack]]s the United States looked at the feasibility of placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure. [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4018573.html]], [http://newsfromtheborder.blogspot.com/2006/07/del-rio-border-influx-drops.html], [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/national-guard-presence-cutting-number.php]

In December, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to build a [[separation barrier]] along parts of the border not already protected by a separation barriers. A later vote in the [[United States Senate]] on [[May 17]], [[2006]], included a plan to blockade 860 miles of the border with vehicle barriers and triple-layer fencing along with granting amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and roughly doubling legal immigration. [[Bay Buchanan]], head of [[Team America]], an [[immigration reduction]] [[political action committee]], estimated that it would take less than six months to build a 2,000 mile, triple-layer fence and would cost roughly $1.5 - 3 billion. On the same show, Buchanan claimed that the 1990s-era border security program [[Operation Gatekeeper]] cut down unauthorized immigration by 90%. The actual numbers are not quite that high with 565,581 apprehensions in San Diego district in fiscal year 1992 before Operation Gatekeeper and its enhanced border fencing and policing to a low of 100,681 apprehensions in in 2002--an 82% reduction. Apprehensions in 2006 are at 138,608 or a 75% reduction. [http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/news/SDUT-4-16-06.pdf]
Apprehensions have gone up in other areas as border security was enhanced in San Diego and El Paso which saw a similar drop in apprehensions.

==References==
<references />

==Further reading==
* Barkan, Elliott R. "Return of the Nativists? California Public Opinion and Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s." ''Social Science History'' 2003 27(2): 229-283. in Project Muse
* Cull, Nicholas J. and Carrasco, Davíd, ed. ''Alambrista and the US-Mexico Border: Film, Music, and Stories of Undocumented Immigrants'' U. of New Mexico Press, 2004. 225 pp.
* Thomas J. Espenshade; "Unauthorized Immigration to the United States" ''Annual Review of Sociology''. Volume: 21. 1995. pp 195+.
* Flores, William V. "New Citizens, New Rights: Undocumented Immigrants and Latino Cultural Citizenship" ''Latin American Perspectives'' 2003 30(2): 87-100
* Lisa Magaña, ''Straddling the Border: Immigration Policy and the INS'' (2003
* Mohl, Raymond A. "Latinization in the Heart of Dixie: Hispanics in Late-twentieth-century Alabama" ''Alabama Review'' 2002 55(4): 243-274. Issn: 0002-4341
* Ngai, Mae M. ''Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America'' (2004),
* Ngai, Mae M. "The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921-1965" ''Law and History Review'' 2003 21(1): 69-107. Issn: 0738-2480 Fulltext in History Cooperative

== See also ==
* [[Immigration reduction]]
* [[United States immigration debate]]
* [[Free immigration]]
* [[History of US immigration]]
* [[Immigrant deaths along the United States Border]]
* [[Migra]]
* [[Nativism]]
* [[NumbersUSA]]
* [[H-1B visa]]
* [[Mara Salvatrucha]]
* [[Minuteman Project]]
* [[S. 2611]]

== Footnotes ==
{{fnb|1}}The [[Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS) defines unauthorized immigrants as “foreign-born persons who entered without inspection or who violated the terms of a temporary admission and who have not acquired Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status or gained temporary protection against removal by applying for an immigration benefit. For example, the following foreign-born persons are not considered to be unauthorized residents in these estimates: refugees, asylees, and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and aliens who are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings. [[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf]]

{{fnb|2}}The [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] and the [[U.S. Border Patrol]] use ''illegal alien'' as their preferred term.
When the term ''undocumented worker'' is used, it generally encompasses all people who enter without documents, including children, the elderly, and those who do not work. The term ''illegal immigrant'' is the preferred language of the [[AP Stylebook]].

==External links==
===News Coverage===
* [[Orange County Register]]: “ 'Visa overstayers' fuel illegal population” - April 5, 2006 [http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1087193.php]
* [[USA Today]]: Text of President Bush's Immigration Law Reform Speech on May 16, 2006 [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-15-bush-speech-text_x.htm?csp=34]
* [[CNN]]: Reaction to Bush immigration speech - May 15, 2006 [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration.reax/index.html]
* [[Miami Herald]]: “No human being is `illegal” – May 24, 2006 [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14652801.htm]
* [[Washington Post]]: “One Sheriff sees immigration answer as simple – May 20, 2006 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]
* [[Associated Press]]: “Ariz. Posse to Arrest Illegal Immigrants” –May 4, 2006 [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html]
* [[NY Times]] “Arizona County Uses New Law to Look for Illegal Immigrants” –May 9, 2006 [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]
* [[City Journal]] “How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy” –no date [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] A publication of [[The Manhattan Institute]]

===Others===
*Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS22026.pdf] a report of the [[Congressional Research Service]] (January 13, 2005) provided by the [[Federation of American Scientists]].

[[Category:Immigration law]]
[[Category:Immigration to the United States]]
[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Legal categories of people]]

[[es:Inmigración ilegal]]

Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-07T00:24:01Z

71.74.209.82: /* Illegal immigration economics */ these focuse on immigration, not illegal immigration, to apply the one to the other is independent research

{{mergeto|United States immigration debate}}

{{Cleanup-references}}
'''Illegal immigration to the United States''' refers to the migration of people across the [[border|national borders]] of the [[United States]] that is in violation of U.S. [[Immigration law|immigration]] and [[United States nationality law|nationality law]]. The terms ''illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented alien, undocumented immigrant'', and ''undocumented worker'', are common terms used to refer to persons residing in the United States without either U.S. [[citizenship]] or a valid immigration status. {{fn|1}}.
In the United States the term ‘’undocumented alien’’ typically refers to a foreign national who entered the country without valid travel documents or that overstayed the limited period of time granted upon entry. For example, a tourist who enters with a valid [B1 visa] and is granted a stay of 15 days and remains in-country for 30 days is an ‘’undocumented alien’’. The holder of a valid B1 (tourist) visa is barred from accepting employment. By accepting employment this hypothetical tourist becomes an ‘’undocumented worker’’ (whether he is an ‘’undocumented alien’’ or not). Not all ‘’undocumented aliens’’ are ‘’undocumented workers’’. For example, the visas overstay tourist who doesn’t work or the illegal crossing stay-at-home wife.
{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrants Info||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Education Profile||Number||Percent||
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Less then 12 yr.||align="right"|6,700,000||67.0%||
|-
!align="right"|High School||align="right"|3,000,000||30.0%||
|-
!align="right"|College Graduate||align="right"|300,000||3.0%||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Total Illegal Pop.||align="right"|12,000,000 ||Jan 2006||
|-
!align="right"|Total Working||align="right"|7,500,000
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Caught|| align="right"|202,842||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Deported|| align="right"|88,895||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Caught and Released|| align="right"|1,010,000+||2005||
|-
!align="right"|Illegal Immigrants/year|| align="right"|1,500,000+||Total||
|-
!align="right"|Voluntary returns/year||align="right"| - 200,000+||2005
|-
!align="right"|Change of Status/year||align="right"| - 600,000+||2005
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Net Increase/year||align="right"| 700,000+||Illegal Immigrants||
|-
|colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] A Description of the Immigrant Population [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2] 
|}

==Methods used to enter the U.S. illegally==
===Overview===
According to the 1997 report issued by the Binational Study on Migration and commissioned by the U.S. and Mexican governments,
* One-third or 2.3 to 2.4 million of the Mexican-born US residents are unauthorized, despite the legalization of two million unauthorized Mexicans in 1987-88, and subsequent legal immigration that unified their families.
*The total number of people from all countries who entered illegally or overstayed their visas in 1996 was estimated by the INS to be 275,000
*US sources suggest that the number of Mexican-born persons increased by two million between 1990 and 1996, and the binational study estimated that legal immigrants were the smallest part of the increase, 510,000, followed by unauthorized, 630,000, and then 760,000 SAWs and their family members. <ref>Migration News Vol. 13 No. 3, December 2006 [http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=1329_0_5_0 Migration News website] Retrieved Aug 2006</ref>

Three years later, in 2000, [[United States presidential election, 2000|US Presidential]] candidate [[Patrick Buchanan]] ([[Reform Party of the United States of America|Reform Party]]) asserted during and interview on [[National Public Radio]] that half a million people a year (a little less than double the figure the Binational Study stated)
are entering the USA illegally.<ref>Patrick Buchanan, National Public Radio interview, "Talk of the Nation", May 30, 2000). "Our levels of immigration now in the last 30 years have been enormous. It’s almost over a million legal immigrants a year, and half a million illegals who come here and stay." </ref>

According to the [[Pew Hispanic Center]] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. By 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. <ref>Rise, Peak and Decline: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004, Pew Hispanic Center [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53 Available online]</ref>

Another report of the Pew Hispanic center, cites that 45% of unauthorized migrants, had initially visas for limited amounts of time, bur over-stayed their visas, and that a small percentage of these entered the country from Mexico by means of a [[Border Crossing Card]]. <ref>Pew Hispanic Center, ''Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population '' (May 2006) [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]"As much as 45% of the total unauthorized migrant population entered the country with visas that allowed them to reside in the U.S. for a limited amount of time. Known as "overstayers", these migrants became part of the unauthorized population when they remained in the country after their visas had expired. Another small share of the unauthorized migrant population entered the country legally from Mexico using a Border Crossing Card, a document that allows short visits limited to the border region, and then violated the terms of admission. The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."</ref>

====Illegal border crossing====
{{sectNPOV}}
That same article goes on to state, "The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."
[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]
meaning that they crossed a border without passing possible criminal or health inspection or having a valid passport and [[Visa (document)|visa]] inspected by an immigration officer at a Port of Entry (POE). It is estimated that over a million people cross the border illegally each year, most of whom are of Mexican origin{fact}. The rest are labeled "Other Than Mexicans" (OTM), of whom a majority are [[Central America]]ns{fact}.

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a [[misdemeanor]] for the first offense and a [[felony]] for subsequent violations{{fact}}. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the future{{fact}}. Immigrants who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. [[H.R. 4437]] would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

According to a report by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary on 1997, "Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling."<ref>[ http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM ORDER SECURITY AND DETERRING ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary</ref>
Another large scale multi-million dollar criminal operations connected to illegal immigration is identity theft. [http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html]
The higher crime rates associated with all this traffic has led to extensive efforts on the part of individual sheriffs and communities trying to prevent further damage to their property and communities. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html], [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html], [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss], [[http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]

In 2006 the number of apprehensions on the border is almost the same as last year through 16 July 2006 at 936,000 [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20060722-9999-1n22crossers.html ]. However, according to many US Border Patrol agents, they were instructed by their leadership to "keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited" as one US Border Patrol agent put it [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm].
Some of the traffic has spread away from the dangerous Tucson districts deserts where over a hundred illegal immigrants have died so far this year compared to 153 in 2005. [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060722/images/border.pdf]

[[Image:ElPaso-Juarez-EO.JPG|thumb|right|200px|El Paso (top) and Ciudad Juárez (bottom) seen from earth orbit; the Rio Grande is the thin line separating the two cities through the middle of the photograph.]]
[[Image:TJ Border Beach.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Beach at Border Field State Park near [[San Ysidro, California]]. (Tire tracks from Border Patrol jeeps are visible on the beach.)]]

Border Patrol activity is concentrated around big border cities such as [[San Diego, California|San Diego]] and [[El Paso, Texas|El Paso]] which already have [[separation barriers]] and extensive Border Agent coverage. Each state in the United States has a [[United States National Guard|National Guard]] organization that could, in principal, be placed on the border at a state governor's discretion to assist with border security; many states also have a backup to the National Gurard called the [[State Defense Force]] that could, in an emergency, also be activated for this purpose. Arizona and New Mexico have currently declared the counties that border [[Mexico]] to be under serious duress caused by uncontrolled illegal immigrant traffic, thereby enabling governors to deploy National Guardsmen to the international border. Arizona has exercised this option but New Mexico has not.

In an article published by Renew America, a website which defines itself as a "Alan Keyes' website for grassroots activism -- designed to foster a nationwide movement to restore America to its founding ideals", former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard asserts that "The whole U.S.-Mexico border could be sealed with as few as 100 helicopters equipped with FLIR (forward looking infrared) scopes, and a few hundred men equipped with state of the art sensors, scopes and other electronics..." [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]

See also [[United States–Mexico border]], [[United States-Canada border]].

=====From countries with no visa agreements=====
Immigrants from nations that do not have automatic visa agreements, or who would not otherwise qualify for a visa, sometimes cross the borders illegally. Individuals from [[North Korea]], [[Libya]], [[Cuba]], [[Syria]], [[Sudan]], and [[Iran]] are required to submit to strict questioning from U.S. officials before their applications are processed. Their applications take longer to process than those for visitors and immigrants from other countries. [http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1300.html]

Often, these individuals enter from a land border using falsified documentation from a third country. For instance, [[Ahmed Ressam]], a member of [[Al Qaeda]], originally from [[Algeria]], entered [[Canada]] with a falsified [[France|French]] passport. Once in Canada, he procured a false Canadian passport to enter the United States. In the case of Cuba, the U.S. offers political asylum to many Cubans, but they first must reach U.S. soil. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//shows/trail/etc/fake.html]

====Visa or Border Crossing Card overstayers====

A visa overstayer is someone who has entered the United States legally and then illegally overstayed his or her visa or violated the restrictions on Border Crossing Card (BCC) or laser visa. Fraudulent and forged visa and BCC passes are included in this category. An estimated average 40-60% of all illegal immigrants to the U.S. entered this way. The number of overstayers varies considerably from country to country depending on the location of the country, the cultural, political, social and economic conditions in a given country in a given time. The PEW Hispanic institute reported [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf] that the INS had developed statistics that showed 3.2% of all Central and South America visas are overstayed. A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study gives estimates for all countries showing that China, India, Korea, and the Philippines had violation rates as high as 8%.[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] In general the poorer the country they came from the more likely the foreign visitor was to violate their visa.

GAO estimated that 40-60% of all Mexican illegal immigrants got here by violating their border crossing document's conditions. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] In operation Tarmac where ICE and DHS checked airport employees for legal employment they found 27% of the over 4900 violators found were visa or BCC violators. In one of the rare ICE check ups on a grocery chain they found that over 57% of the several hundred violators were visa overstayers or BCC violators ([http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf| Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered Defense]) patrol officials believe Visa violator numbers would increase if it became more difficult to illegally sneak across the border as illegal border crossers switched techniques. About 33% of all Central American illegal immigrants came by overstaying their visa with the rest traveling through Mexico to reach the border and then crossing illegally. At lest 95+% of all illegal South American, European, and Asians got here by overstaying their visa. (The other ~5% represent illegal immigrants smuggled by ship or plane) An increasing number of illegal immigrants are now flying to Mexico or Canada and then crossing the border illegally by foot or car. The ICE agents on the border report a 52% increase in border violators caught that are Other Than Mexican (OTM). The two main sources of illegal visa violators are Mexico and Canada which the U.S. has a large amount of cross border traffic with. Other estimates done by the GAO show that the overstayers and BCC violators from Mexico alone in the year 2001 may exceed 2,000,000 /year. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/border_crossing_entry_data/us_mexico/index.html] reported that in 2003 (the last year of available statistics) there were 79,000,000 and 245,000,000 border crossings between Canada and Mexico respectively and the US. The tourist bureau shows that there were less Mexicans (as reported by their government) doing all this traffic than their were Canadians (as reported by their government).[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] Mexico has roughly three times the population of Canada. The latest ICE statistics show that they captured 30,000 Brazilians after they crossed the U.S. Mexican border illegally for the first time in 2004. Two of the terrorists behind the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] were visa overstayers. The federal government historically has not extensibly checked up on visa holders once they are in the country; but visa checks has been used extensively after 9 September 2001 to check up on illegal immigrants from countries with large populations sympathic to terrorists. Several hundred visa violators were deported and several thousand more left voluntarily rather than face deportation hearings. {{fact}}

To help improve the lack of good information on visa overstayers the new US-VISIT program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States as well as requiring electronic readable passports containing this information. Information collected is checked against lookout databases to ensure that known or suspected terrorists, criminals, and previous U.S. immigration law violators are not admitted. [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-11_Feb05.pdf] and then checked against their eventual departure. US-VISIT entry procedures have been operational in the secondary inspection areas of the 50 busiest land border ports of entry since December 29, 2004, and are also in place at 115 airports and 15 seaports.[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4858] Early in 2007 the DHS is hoping to replace the laser visa or boundary crossing cards with People Access Security Service (PASS) card, as a secure identity document for people traveling to or from Canada or Mexico. [http://www.thebta.org/syndicate/news/archives/cat_us-visit.html] These would include Radio Frequency Identification Data (RFID) for ease of transit and security.

Visa overstayers violators tend to be somewhat more educated and be better off financially than those who walked crossed the border illegally. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0205/p01s03-usju.html] The financial and education status of the thousands of BCC or laser visa violators is unknown; but is probably very similar to the illegal border crossers who walked across since they both come from the same population base.

One common means of visa overstaying is coming to the U.S. on a student visa and not going to school or not leaving the country after finishing school. [http://ktla.trb.com/la-me-visa22may22,0,2677069.story?coll=ktla-home-3] The number of foreign students in the United States is over 600,000.

==Profile summaries of illegal immigrants==
<center>
{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"
!align=“center”! colspan=8 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Profile Summaries of Illegal Immigrants January 2006
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
||Job Category||% of Illegal Immigrant||% of Native -1 w/8+ yr sch.||% of Average Native||# Illegal Immigrant||# Native 8+ yr sch.||# Average Native
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Managerial / Self Employed||1.50%||5.9%||32.2%||108,000||758,000||33,810,000
|-
!align=“right”|Retail / Business||4.90%||15.2%||29.2%||352,800||1,952,700||30,660,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Private||1.20%||1.0%||0.3%||86,400||128,500||315,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farm Mgr||1.60%||1.6%||1.1%||115,200||205,600||1,155,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Retail||18.20%||20.3%||10.3%||1,310,400||2,607,900||10,815,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farming -2||17.50%||2.9%||1.0%||1,260,000||372,600||1,050,000
|-
!align=“right”|Production||22.0%||20.1%||11.9%||1,584,000||2,582,200||12,495,000
|-
!align=“right”|Construction||33.0%||33.1%||14.0%||2,376,000||4,252,400||14,700,000
|-
|||||||||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Total # Working||7,500,000||12,847,000||108,000,000||||||
|-
!align="right"|Labor rate of Participation -3||82%||46.3%||66.30%||||||
|-
!align="right"|Unemployment Rate||7.0%||7.0%||4.10%||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Country Profile||||||Sex / age Profile||||||Worker profile||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Mexican|| 6,840,000 ||57%||men 18-39||5,300,000||43.7%||align="right"|4,500,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Latin & Central Amer.|| align="right"|3,000,000 ||25%||women 18-39||align="right"|3,500,000 ||29.1%|| align="right"|2,000,000 ||60%
|-
!align="right"|Asia|| 1,080,000 ||9%||more than 40|| 1,300,000 ||10.7%||align="right"|1,000,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Europe + Canada|| 720,000 ||6%||less than 18||align="right"|2,040,000 ||17.0%||align="right"|200,000 ||10%
|-
!align="right"|Rest of World|| 480,000 ||4%||Born / yr.||align="right"|300,000||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Totals Jan 2006||12,100,000 ||||Total Pop.||12,400,000||Total Working||7,500,000
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / year||align="right"|700,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||See Note 7
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / Month||align="right"|60,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||
|-
|}
</center>

# Native Population that most closely matches Illegal immigrant population is workers that never graduated from high school.
# Farm work is the only job category that illegal immigrants uniquely fill; but it does have a 30,000 H2-A visa program for it!
# Rate of Participation is fraction of total population seeking work
# Average Education of illegal immigrants may be less if the ~30% Central American's are included.
# How many criminals turn around after deportation and return is unknown; but it is significant that ICE catchs more than they deport.
# Estimated number may be low by several hundred thousand
# Other estimates of net increase are over 850,000 illegal immigrants / year.

Information Sources:

*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population
*[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2]A Description of the Immigrant Population
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm] Labor Participation less than High School
* [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1204.html] Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't
*[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/AnnualReportEnforcement2004.pdf] Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2004
*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/16.pdf] The Labor Force Status of Short-Term Unauthorized Workers
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf] Labor Statistics

==Illegal immigration economics==
The economics of illegal immigration are a highly contentious issue with much conflicting information presented. In 1990 the Congress appointed a bipartisan [[Commission on Immigration Reform]] to review the nation's policies and laws and to recommend changes. Information about the commission and its reports are available at http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/. In turn, the commission in 1995 asked the National Research Council of the National Science Foundation to convene a panel of experts to assess the demographic, economic, and fiscal consequences of immigration. The panel was asked to lay a scientific

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
In an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal (1994), Richard K. Vedder, Professor of Economics at the Ohio University, states that his study found no statistically meaningful relationship between immigration and unemployment and that if such a relationship exists, it appears to work in the opposite direction. <ref>Vedder, Richard K. ''Immigration Doesn’t Displace Natives'', March 28, 1994, [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?ID=269 Available online] "Using several different periods and approaches, we consistently found no statistically meaningful relationship between immigration and unemployment. However, if there is any correlation, it would appear to be negative: Higher immigration is associated with lower unemployment." </ref> He goes on to postulate that immigrants work harder for cheaper wages than citizens.
! colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Education, Income and Taxes||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||Asia||Latin America||Other||U.S. / CA
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align =“right”|Years of Education *||14.2||14.7||9.2||12+||14.4
|-
!align =“right”|Household Income *||$42k||$57k||$32k||$42k||42k
|-
!align =“right”|Effective Federal tax rate **||18.7%||22%||5%||18.7%||18.7%
|-
!align =“right”|Effective State tax rate ***||10%||12%||9%||10%||10.9%
|-
!align =“right”|Average Federal taxes ||$7.9k||$12.5k||$1.6k||$7.9k||$7.9k
|-
!align =“right”|Average State taxes||$4.2k||$6.8k||$2.9||$4.2k||$4.5k
|-
|colspan=6|<hr>

|-
|colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' * Census data [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/effect2004/effect2004.html] **Average federal tax data from CBO estimates of effective Federal tax rates [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] ***State taxes are from California Statistical Abstract [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/STAT-ABS/toc.htm] Note: Most of the Federal and state taxes are paid by households earning significantly more than average.

|}

foundation for policymaking on some specific Immigration issues. [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/1.html]
The panel consisted of over 15 well respected professors from highly ranked universities [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The National Science Foundation panels charge was to address three key questions:
# What is the effect of immigration on the future size and composition of the U.S. population?
# What is the influence of immigration on the overall economy?
# What is the fiscal impact of immigration on federal, state, and local governments?
The report by 15+ researchers was issued after 3 years study was called “The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration” (1997) Edited by James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, ISBN 0-309-06356-6. The book is available on line at [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The enclosed table summarizes some of the National Academy of Sciences main conclusions.

Previous studies (and many subsequent} of the fiscal impacts of immigration were found to have serious deficiencies. Indeed in 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available. Many of these represented not science but advocacy from both sides of the immigration debate. These studies often offered an incomplete accounting of either the full list of taxpayer costs and benefits by ignoring some programs and taxes while including others. More important, the conceptual foundation of this research was rarely explicitly stated, offering opportunities to tilt the research toward the desired result. [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/2.html]

'''"As long as there is a virtually unlimited supply of potential immigrants, the nation must make choices on how many to admit and who they should be."''' National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1997.

{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| National Science Foundation Immigrant Economics Federal State Local Net Annual Fiscal Impact per Household [1997]||
|-
| colspan=12|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||%||Asia||%||Latin America||%||Other||%||All||% ||Total Cost *
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>
|--
!align =“right”|California||$1,631||26%||$1,081||25%|| ($7,206)||43%||$3,313||6%||($2.206)||100%|| ($20.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449||26%||$2,022||25%|| ($5,625)||43%||$3,052||6%|| ($1,613)||100%|| ($15.0) billion 
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrant Economics **
|-
!align =“right”|California||$1,631 ||6%||$1,081 ||9%|| ($7,206)||81%||$3,313 ||4%|| ($5,509)||100%|| ($22.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449 ||6%||$2,022 ||9%|| ($5,625)||81%||$3,052 ||4%|| ($4,225)||100%|| ($17.0) billion 
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>

|-
|colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' ''The New Americans'', National Science Foundation Table 6.4, pg 284[http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/284.html] * Total costs calculated for all U.S. immigrants, legal and illegal, 9.166 million households 1995 ** No adjustments for changes since 1995, assumes 4 million illegal households, percent distribution from Pew 
|}

One study put the cost to the federal government at $2,700/household [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html] On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal government are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Still another study put the net costs to California residents at $433/household for European/Canadian immigrants, $1,240/household for Asian immigrants and $8,182/household for Latin American workers [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/161.html TABLE 4-7a Net Fiscal Impacts by Nativity of Householder] pg 160-1. These are the costs calculated for all immigrants legal and illegal. The costs for illegal immigrants are significantly higher since they have even less education, earn even less income and often avoid paying even the small taxes they are elgible for.

Madeleine Cosman contends that the requirement of hospitals to offer service to illegal aliens regardless of the alien's ability to pay has led to many hospitals running a deficit and being forced to close.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf] Also, free public education is extended to all children in the U.S. regardless of their citizen status. The matricula consular and passports are usually considered legal identification by many police agencies and governments.

Nearly all modern developed societies like Sweden, Canada and the United States heavily subsidize the cost of all government services for low income people by heavily taxing the higher income people. In the United states the effective federal tax rate considering all federal taxes as calculated by the Congressional Budget office runs from 4.8% for the bottom quintile [0-20%](avg. income = $34k) to 25% for the last quintile [80-100%] of income households. The bottom two income quintiles, with exemptions, are nearly exempt from all income tax and social security taxes are heavily subsidized. Many illegal workers claim they have income tax witheld not bothering to mention it is nearly always negligibly small.[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] The state's tax systems vary more but nearly always tax the higher income people much more than the lower income people.

==2004 illegal immigration debate==
{{main|United States immigration debate}}
In 2004, [[United States]] [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] proposed a [[guest worker]] program to absorb migrant laborers who would otherwise come to the U.S. as [[illegal alien]]s. However, the details were left to legislators. In 2005, the [[United States Congress|Congress]] began creating legislation to change the current [[illegal immigration]] policies. The legislation approved by the U.S. [[House of Representatives]] led to massive protests.

See also [[2006 United States immigration reform protests]].

==Legal issues==

===Legal and political status===

===Citizenship and the children of immigrants===
Before passage of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], in 1865 after the conclusion of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], the United States commonly granted citizenship on the basis of [[jus soli]]. The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to protect newly emancipated [[freedmen|former slaves]], and in keeping with the jus soli tradition of the Republic has been interpreted by the [[United States Supreme Court]], in precedent set by ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'' in 1898, to cover everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents, with the exception of the children of diplomats. The decision in ''Wong Kim Ark'' upheld the ''jus soli'' which had often been practiced before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In short, the Court found that the 14th Amendment re-affirmed ''jus soli''. ''Wong Kim Ark'' did not overturn or weaken ''Elk v. Wilkins''; it simply defined ''jus soli''. The Court found that Wong Kim Ark, having been born to Chinese citizens, who were lawfully residing within the United States, and with the intention of amicably obeying its laws, was a citizen of the United States. Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly not''' citizens:
* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Children born to [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the [[Indian Citizenship Act of 1924]])
The following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly''' citizens:
* Children born to US citizens
* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people, and obeying its laws.

Under these rulings, the citizenship status of the U.S.-born children of [[illegal immigrant]]s is in the same gray area as people born in foreign countries of foreign parents - that is, neither ruling explicitly denies or grants them citizenship. Various aspects of both ''Elk v. Wilkins'' and ''Wong Kim Ark'' lend reasoning that such children are not US citizens. ''Wong Kim Ark'' is often cited as granting the children of illegal aliens US citizenship, but the ruling is explicit in that it applies to the children of aliens who are legally within the United States. Some may even argue that it implicitly denies them citizenship by doing so. However, in terms of Supreme Court rulings, or the rulings of any court, implicit is meaningless. The ''status quo'' is that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens, and it will remain that way until government policy changes or is challenged, and the Supreme Court inevitably makes an explicit ruling.

Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a [[constitutional amendment]]. The proposed changes are usually one of the following:
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or [[permanent resident]] (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States (requires an Act of Congress, probably challenged to the Supreme Court).

Representative [[Nathan Deal]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] of [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], introduced legislation in [[2005]] to assert that U.S.-born children are only "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (and therefore eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment) if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Similarly, Representative [[Ron Paul]] of [[Texas]] has introduced a constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Neither of these measures has come to a vote. Even if Rep. Deal's legislation were passed by Congress, it would likely be struck down by the courts based on the precedent established in ''U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark'', which allows for the US born children of lawful visitors to be citizens as well. The issue remains controversial, reflecting both tensions about immigration and disputes about the appropriate balance of power between the courts and the Congress.

Children of families where at least one parent is an illegal immigrant are sometimes referred to as ''[[Anchor baby|anchor babies]]'' because once the illegal family's mother gives birth to the baby inside the U.S., the baby is said to "anchor" them to the U.S.. Legally the illegal parent or parents can still be deported so the anchor is more perceived than real. However, some illegal immigrant advocates and some of the children with parents of mixed legal immigration status feel the term "Anchor Baby" is [[pejorative]]. Some prefer the term "Permanently Residing Under Color Of Law," or "PRUCOL." PRUCOL is a broadly-defined status which covers a variety of situations, including, but not limited to, those persons who are appealing for an adjustment of status as refugee, or persons who are awaiting hearings to decide status and final legal disposition of their case. There are an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 children per year born to parents of mixed legal immigration status.{{fact}}

===Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986===
The [[Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]] (IRCA) made the hiring of an individual without documents an offense for the first time. Enforcement has been lax, but major businesses have often been found to use illegal immigrants. The act is somewhat redundant since the forging of government documents (fake immigration documents or providing falsified social security numbers) is already a felony, and for most companies such documents must be provided to the government in its tax filings. However, the government does not notify those whose identities have been stolen for the falsified social security numbers, thus making it difficult to estimate the extent of the problem. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/]

===Legal cases===
Some major companies have been accused of hiring undocumented workers.

* [[Tyson Foods]] was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its [[chicken]] packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee acquitted the company after evidence was presented that [[Tyson Foods]] went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.
* [[Wal-Mart]] was convicted of using illegal sub contracted [[janitor|janitorial]] workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge or permission.
* [[Philippe Kahn]], who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company [[Borland International]] without ever getting [[United States Permanent Resident Card|proper legal status]].

===Use of military to defend border===
See [[United States immigration debate]]

===Immigration with and without quotas===
The immigration quota system was first expanded with the [[Emergency Quota Act]] of 1921 which was used to reduce the influx of East and Southern European immigrants who were coming to the country in large numbers from the turn of the century. This immigration was further reduced by the [[Immigration Act of 1924]] which was structured to maintain the cultural and ethnic traditions of the United States.

There has never been a quota for Jews or any other religious group, only for people from specific countries. The waiting list for the few available immigration spots grew enormously in the 1930s in the U.S. and throughout the free world that was accepting any immigration. In the 1930's the number of Jewish immigrant applicants seeking visa to the U.S. alone exceeded the quota for all of Germany. [[Adolf Hitler]] started his [[Holocast]] program in the 1930's that ultimately led to the death of over 10,000,000 people including 6,000,000 Jews. The [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] administration had nearly shut down immigration during the decade of the [[Great Depression of 1929]]. In 1929 there were 279,678 immigrants recorded and in 1933 there were only 23,068 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. By 1939 recorded immigrants had crept back up to 82,998 but then the advent of World War II drove it back down to 23,725 in 1943 increasing slowly to 38,119 by 1945 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. After 1946 about 600,000 of Europe's Displaced Person (DP's) refugees were admitted under special laws outside the country quotas, and in the 1960s and 1970s large numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/] were admitted under special laws outside all quotas. Congress passed the [[Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965]] which esssentially removed all nation-specific quotas, while retaining an overall quota, and included immigrants from Mexico and the Western Hemisphere for the first time with their own quotas. It also put a large part of immigration, so-called family reunification, outside the quota system. This dramatically changed the number, type and composition of the new arrivals from mostly European, to predominantly poor [[Latino]] and [[Asian]]. It also dramatically increased the number of illegal immigrants as many poorer people now had family or friends in the U.S. that attracted them there. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] In 1986, the [[Immigration Reform and Control Act]] (IRCA) was passed, creating amnesty for about 3,000,000 illegal immigrants already in the United States. Critics believe IRCA just intensified the illegal immigration flow as those granted amnesty illegally brought more of their friends and family into the U.S.. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

Without quotas on large segments of the immigration flow, legal immigration to the U.S. surged and soon became largely family based "Chain immigration" where familys brought in a never ending chain of off quota new immigrant family members. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States are now at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000. Net Illegal immigration has also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970's, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980's to over 500,000 per year in the 1990's to over 700,000 per year in the 2000's. Total illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf], [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html])

See also:[[Immigration to the United States]]

===Other===
There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics.
* During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents.
* [[Linda Chavez]], [[Zoe Baird]] and [[Tom Tancredo]] are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "[[Nannygate]]". In Tancredo's case, a home contractor allegedly hired illegal aliens.

==Historical context==
Every wave of immigration into the United States has faced fear and hostility, especially during times of economic hardship, political turmoil, or war: in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, one of our nation's first immigration laws, to keep out all people of Chinese origin; during the "Red Scare" of the 1920s, thousands of foreign-born people suspected of political radicalism were arrested and brutalized; many were deported without a hearing; and in 1942, 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned in camps until the end of World War II.
===Chinese experience===
In 1882 the [[Chinese Exclusion Act (United States)|Chinese Exclusion Act]] had cut off nearly all [[China|Chinese]] immigration. The first laws creating a [[quota]] for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers. Ngai (2003) shows that the new laws were the beginning of mass illegal immigration, because they created a new class of persons - illegal aliens - whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility. This contradiction challenged received notions of sovereignty and democracy in several ways. First, the increase in the number of illegal entries created a new emphasis on control of the nation's borders - especially the long Canadian border. Second, the application of the deportation laws gave rise to an oppositional political and legal discourse, which imagined "deserving" and "undeserving" illegal immigrants and, therefore, just and unjust deportations. These categories were constructed out of modern ideas about crime, sexual morality, the family, and race. In the 1930s federal deportation policy became the object of legal reform to allow for administrative discretion in deportation cases. Just as restriction and deportation "made" illegal aliens, administrative discretion "unmade" illegal aliens. Administrative law reform became an unlikely site where problems of national belonging and inclusion played out.

===History of border security===
For a period of time in the 1990s U.S. Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal aliens and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR infrared devices, and helicopters. In conjunction with the U.S. Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. Sher Zieve claims this was very effective but temporary as the illegal traffic resumed as soon as the military withdrew.[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]. After the [[September 11, 2001 attack]]s the United States looked at the feasibility of placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure. [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4018573.html]], [http://newsfromtheborder.blogspot.com/2006/07/del-rio-border-influx-drops.html], [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/national-guard-presence-cutting-number.php]

In December, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to build a [[separation barrier]] along parts of the border not already protected by a separation barriers. A later vote in the [[United States Senate]] on [[May 17]], [[2006]], included a plan to blockade 860 miles of the border with vehicle barriers and triple-layer fencing along with granting amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and roughly doubling legal immigration. [[Bay Buchanan]], head of [[Team America]], an [[immigration reduction]] [[political action committee]], estimated that it would take less than six months to build a 2,000 mile, triple-layer fence and would cost roughly $1.5 - 3 billion. On the same show, Buchanan claimed that the 1990s-era border security program [[Operation Gatekeeper]] cut down unauthorized immigration by 90%. The actual numbers are not quite that high with 565,581 apprehensions in San Diego district in fiscal year 1992 before Operation Gatekeeper and its enhanced border fencing and policing to a low of 100,681 apprehensions in in 2002--an 82% reduction. Apprehensions in 2006 are at 138,608 or a 75% reduction. [http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/news/SDUT-4-16-06.pdf]
Apprehensions have gone up in other areas as border security was enhanced in San Diego and El Paso which saw a similar drop in apprehensions.

==References==
<references />

==Further reading==
* Barkan, Elliott R. "Return of the Nativists? California Public Opinion and Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s." ''Social Science History'' 2003 27(2): 229-283. in Project Muse
* Cull, Nicholas J. and Carrasco, Davíd, ed. ''Alambrista and the US-Mexico Border: Film, Music, and Stories of Undocumented Immigrants'' U. of New Mexico Press, 2004. 225 pp.
* Thomas J. Espenshade; "Unauthorized Immigration to the United States" ''Annual Review of Sociology''. Volume: 21. 1995. pp 195+.
* Flores, William V. "New Citizens, New Rights: Undocumented Immigrants and Latino Cultural Citizenship" ''Latin American Perspectives'' 2003 30(2): 87-100
* Lisa Magaña, ''Straddling the Border: Immigration Policy and the INS'' (2003
* Mohl, Raymond A. "Latinization in the Heart of Dixie: Hispanics in Late-twentieth-century Alabama" ''Alabama Review'' 2002 55(4): 243-274. Issn: 0002-4341
* Ngai, Mae M. ''Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America'' (2004),
* Ngai, Mae M. "The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921-1965" ''Law and History Review'' 2003 21(1): 69-107. Issn: 0738-2480 Fulltext in History Cooperative

== See also ==
* [[Immigration reduction]]
* [[United States immigration debate]]
* [[Free immigration]]
* [[History of US immigration]]
* [[Immigrant deaths along the United States Border]]
* [[Migra]]
* [[Nativism]]
* [[NumbersUSA]]
* [[H-1B visa]]
* [[Mara Salvatrucha]]
* [[Minuteman Project]]
* [[S. 2611]]

== Footnotes ==
{{fnb|1}}The [[Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS) defines unauthorized immigrants as “foreign-born persons who entered without inspection or who violated the terms of a temporary admission and who have not acquired Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status or gained temporary protection against removal by applying for an immigration benefit. For example, the following foreign-born persons are not considered to be unauthorized residents in these estimates: refugees, asylees, and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and aliens who are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings. [[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf]]

{{fnb|2}}The [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] and the [[U.S. Border Patrol]] use ''illegal alien'' as their preferred term.
When the term ''undocumented worker'' is used, it generally encompasses all people who enter without documents, including children, the elderly, and those who do not work. The term ''illegal immigrant'' is the preferred language of the [[AP Stylebook]].

==External links==
===News Coverage===
* [[Orange County Register]]: “ 'Visa overstayers' fuel illegal population” - April 5, 2006 [http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1087193.php]
* [[USA Today]]: Text of President Bush's Immigration Law Reform Speech on May 16, 2006 [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-15-bush-speech-text_x.htm?csp=34]
* [[CNN]]: Reaction to Bush immigration speech - May 15, 2006 [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration.reax/index.html]
* [[Miami Herald]]: “No human being is `illegal” – May 24, 2006 [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14652801.htm]
* [[Washington Post]]: “One Sheriff sees immigration answer as simple – May 20, 2006 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]
* [[Associated Press]]: “Ariz. Posse to Arrest Illegal Immigrants” –May 4, 2006 [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html]
* [[NY Times]] “Arizona County Uses New Law to Look for Illegal Immigrants” –May 9, 2006 [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]
* [[City Journal]] “How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy” –no date [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] A publication of [[The Manhattan Institute]]

===Others===
*Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS22026.pdf] a report of the [[Congressional Research Service]] (January 13, 2005) provided by the [[Federation of American Scientists]].

[[Category:Immigration law]]
[[Category:Immigration to the United States]]
[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Legal categories of people]]

[[es:Inmigración ilegal]]

Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-06T22:40:17Z

71.74.209.82: /* =Economic impact of immigrants */

{{mergeto|United States immigration debate}}

{{Cleanup-references}}
'''Illegal immigration to the United States''' refers to the migration of people across the [[border|national borders]] of the [[United States]] that is in violation of U.S. [[Immigration law|immigration]] and [[United States nationality law|nationality law]]. The terms ''illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented alien, undocumented immigrant'', and ''undocumented worker'', are common terms used to refer to persons residing in the United States without either U.S. [[citizenship]] or a valid immigration status. {{fn|1}}.
In the United States the term ‘’undocumented alien’’ typically refers to a foreign national who entered the country without valid travel documents or that overstayed the limited period of time granted upon entry. For example, a tourist who enters with a valid [B1 visa] and is granted a stay of 15 days and remains in-country for 30 days is an ‘’undocumented alien’’. The holder of a valid B1 (tourist) visa is barred from accepting employment. By accepting employment this hypothetical tourist becomes an ‘’undocumented worker’’ (whether he is an ‘’undocumented alien’’ or not). Not all ‘’undocumented aliens’’ are ‘’undocumented workers’’. For example, the visas overstay tourist who doesn’t work or the illegal crossing stay-at-home wife.
{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrants Info||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Education Profile||Number||Percent||
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Less then 12 yr.||align="right"|6,700,000||67.0%||
|-
!align="right"|High School||align="right"|3,000,000||30.0%||
|-
!align="right"|College Graduate||align="right"|300,000||3.0%||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Total Illegal Pop.||align="right"|12,000,000 ||Jan 2006||
|-
!align="right"|Total Working||align="right"|7,500,000
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Caught|| align="right"|202,842||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Deported|| align="right"|88,895||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Caught and Released|| align="right"|1,010,000+||2005||
|-
!align="right"|Illegal Immigrants/year|| align="right"|1,500,000+||Total||
|-
!align="right"|Voluntary returns/year||align="right"| - 200,000+||2005
|-
!align="right"|Change of Status/year||align="right"| - 600,000+||2005
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Net Increase/year||align="right"| 700,000+||Illegal Immigrants||
|-
|colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] A Description of the Immigrant Population [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2] 
|}

==Methods used to enter the U.S. illegally==
===Overview===
According to the 1997 report issued by the Binational Study on Migration and commissioned by the U.S. and Mexican governments,
* One-third or 2.3 to 2.4 million of the Mexican-born US residents are unauthorized, despite the legalization of two million unauthorized Mexicans in 1987-88, and subsequent legal immigration that unified their families.
*The total number of people from all countries who entered illegally or overstayed their visas in 1996 was estimated by the INS to be 275,000
*US sources suggest that the number of Mexican-born persons increased by two million between 1990 and 1996, and the binational study estimated that legal immigrants were the smallest part of the increase, 510,000, followed by unauthorized, 630,000, and then 760,000 SAWs and their family members. <ref>Migration News Vol. 13 No. 3, December 2006 [http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=1329_0_5_0 Migration News website] Retrieved Aug 2006</ref>

Three years later, in 2000, [[United States presidential election, 2000|US Presidential]] candidate [[Patrick Buchanan]] ([[Reform Party of the United States of America|Reform Party]]) asserted during and interview on [[National Public Radio]] that half a million people a year (a little less than double the figure the Binational Study stated)
are entering the USA illegally.<ref>Patrick Buchanan, National Public Radio interview, "Talk of the Nation", May 30, 2000). "Our levels of immigration now in the last 30 years have been enormous. It’s almost over a million legal immigrants a year, and half a million illegals who come here and stay." </ref>

According to the [[Pew Hispanic Center]] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. By 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. <ref>Rise, Peak and Decline: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004, Pew Hispanic Center [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53 Available online]</ref>

Another report of the Pew Hispanic center, cites that 45% of unauthorized migrants, had initially visas for limited amounts of time, bur over-stayed their visas, and that a small percentage of these entered the country from Mexico by means of a [[Border Crossing Card]]. <ref>Pew Hispanic Center, ''Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population '' (May 2006) [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]"As much as 45% of the total unauthorized migrant population entered the country with visas that allowed them to reside in the U.S. for a limited amount of time. Known as "overstayers", these migrants became part of the unauthorized population when they remained in the country after their visas had expired. Another small share of the unauthorized migrant population entered the country legally from Mexico using a Border Crossing Card, a document that allows short visits limited to the border region, and then violated the terms of admission. The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."</ref>

====Illegal border crossing====
{{sectNPOV}}
That same article goes on to state, "The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."
[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]
meaning that they crossed a border without passing possible criminal or health inspection or having a valid passport and [[Visa (document)|visa]] inspected by an immigration officer at a Port of Entry (POE). It is estimated that over a million people cross the border illegally each year, most of whom are of Mexican origin{fact}. The rest are labeled "Other Than Mexicans" (OTM), of whom a majority are [[Central America]]ns{fact}.

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a [[misdemeanor]] for the first offense and a [[felony]] for subsequent violations{{fact}}. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the future{{fact}}. Immigrants who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. [[H.R. 4437]] would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

According to a report by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary on 1997, "Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling."<ref>[ http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM ORDER SECURITY AND DETERRING ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary</ref>
Another large scale multi-million dollar criminal operations connected to illegal immigration is identity theft. [http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html]
The higher crime rates associated with all this traffic has led to extensive efforts on the part of individual sheriffs and communities trying to prevent further damage to their property and communities. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html], [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html], [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss], [[http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]

In 2006 the number of apprehensions on the border is almost the same as last year through 16 July 2006 at 936,000 [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20060722-9999-1n22crossers.html ]. However, according to many US Border Patrol agents, they were instructed by their leadership to "keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited" as one US Border Patrol agent put it [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm].
Some of the traffic has spread away from the dangerous Tucson districts deserts where over a hundred illegal immigrants have died so far this year compared to 153 in 2005. [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060722/images/border.pdf]

[[Image:ElPaso-Juarez-EO.JPG|thumb|right|200px|El Paso (top) and Ciudad Juárez (bottom) seen from earth orbit; the Rio Grande is the thin line separating the two cities through the middle of the photograph.]]
[[Image:TJ Border Beach.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Beach at Border Field State Park near [[San Ysidro, California]]. (Tire tracks from Border Patrol jeeps are visible on the beach.)]]

Border Patrol activity is concentrated around big border cities such as [[San Diego, California|San Diego]] and [[El Paso, Texas|El Paso]] which already have [[separation barriers]] and extensive Border Agent coverage. Each state in the United States has a [[United States National Guard|National Guard]] organization that could, in principal, be placed on the border at a state governor's discretion to assist with border security; many states also have a backup to the National Gurard called the [[State Defense Force]] that could, in an emergency, also be activated for this purpose. Arizona and New Mexico have currently declared the counties that border [[Mexico]] to be under serious duress caused by uncontrolled illegal immigrant traffic, thereby enabling governors to deploy National Guardsmen to the international border. Arizona has exercised this option but New Mexico has not.

In an article published by Renew America, a website which defines itself as a "Alan Keyes' website for grassroots activism -- designed to foster a nationwide movement to restore America to its founding ideals", former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard asserts that "The whole U.S.-Mexico border could be sealed with as few as 100 helicopters equipped with FLIR (forward looking infrared) scopes, and a few hundred men equipped with state of the art sensors, scopes and other electronics..." [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]

See also [[United States–Mexico border]], [[United States-Canada border]].

=====From countries with no visa agreements=====
Immigrants from nations that do not have automatic visa agreements, or who would not otherwise qualify for a visa, sometimes cross the borders illegally. Individuals from [[North Korea]], [[Libya]], [[Cuba]], [[Syria]], [[Sudan]], and [[Iran]] are required to submit to strict questioning from U.S. officials before their applications are processed. Their applications take longer to process than those for visitors and immigrants from other countries. [http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1300.html]

Often, these individuals enter from a land border using falsified documentation from a third country. For instance, [[Ahmed Ressam]], a member of [[Al Qaeda]], originally from [[Algeria]], entered [[Canada]] with a falsified [[France|French]] passport. Once in Canada, he procured a false Canadian passport to enter the United States. In the case of Cuba, the U.S. offers political asylum to many Cubans, but they first must reach U.S. soil. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//shows/trail/etc/fake.html]

====Visa or Border Crossing Card overstayers====

A visa overstayer is someone who has entered the United States legally and then illegally overstayed his or her visa or violated the restrictions on Border Crossing Card (BCC) or laser visa. Fraudulent and forged visa and BCC passes are included in this category. An estimated average 40-60% of all illegal immigrants to the U.S. entered this way. The number of overstayers varies considerably from country to country depending on the location of the country, the cultural, political, social and economic conditions in a given country in a given time. The PEW Hispanic institute reported [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf] that the INS had developed statistics that showed 3.2% of all Central and South America visas are overstayed. A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study gives estimates for all countries showing that China, India, Korea, and the Philippines had violation rates as high as 8%.[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] In general the poorer the country they came from the more likely the foreign visitor was to violate their visa.

GAO estimated that 40-60% of all Mexican illegal immigrants got here by violating their border crossing document's conditions. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] In operation Tarmac where ICE and DHS checked airport employees for legal employment they found 27% of the over 4900 violators found were visa or BCC violators. In one of the rare ICE check ups on a grocery chain they found that over 57% of the several hundred violators were visa overstayers or BCC violators ([http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf| Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered Defense]) patrol officials believe Visa violator numbers would increase if it became more difficult to illegally sneak across the border as illegal border crossers switched techniques. About 33% of all Central American illegal immigrants came by overstaying their visa with the rest traveling through Mexico to reach the border and then crossing illegally. At lest 95+% of all illegal South American, European, and Asians got here by overstaying their visa. (The other ~5% represent illegal immigrants smuggled by ship or plane) An increasing number of illegal immigrants are now flying to Mexico or Canada and then crossing the border illegally by foot or car. The ICE agents on the border report a 52% increase in border violators caught that are Other Than Mexican (OTM). The two main sources of illegal visa violators are Mexico and Canada which the U.S. has a large amount of cross border traffic with. Other estimates done by the GAO show that the overstayers and BCC violators from Mexico alone in the year 2001 may exceed 2,000,000 /year. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/border_crossing_entry_data/us_mexico/index.html] reported that in 2003 (the last year of available statistics) there were 79,000,000 and 245,000,000 border crossings between Canada and Mexico respectively and the US. The tourist bureau shows that there were less Mexicans (as reported by their government) doing all this traffic than their were Canadians (as reported by their government).[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] Mexico has roughly three times the population of Canada. The latest ICE statistics show that they captured 30,000 Brazilians after they crossed the U.S. Mexican border illegally for the first time in 2004. Two of the terrorists behind the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] were visa overstayers. The federal government historically has not extensibly checked up on visa holders once they are in the country; but visa checks has been used extensively after 9 September 2001 to check up on illegal immigrants from countries with large populations sympathic to terrorists. Several hundred visa violators were deported and several thousand more left voluntarily rather than face deportation hearings. {{fact}}

To help improve the lack of good information on visa overstayers the new US-VISIT program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States as well as requiring electronic readable passports containing this information. Information collected is checked against lookout databases to ensure that known or suspected terrorists, criminals, and previous U.S. immigration law violators are not admitted. [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-11_Feb05.pdf] and then checked against their eventual departure. US-VISIT entry procedures have been operational in the secondary inspection areas of the 50 busiest land border ports of entry since December 29, 2004, and are also in place at 115 airports and 15 seaports.[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4858] Early in 2007 the DHS is hoping to replace the laser visa or boundary crossing cards with People Access Security Service (PASS) card, as a secure identity document for people traveling to or from Canada or Mexico. [http://www.thebta.org/syndicate/news/archives/cat_us-visit.html] These would include Radio Frequency Identification Data (RFID) for ease of transit and security.

Visa overstayers violators tend to be somewhat more educated and be better off financially than those who walked crossed the border illegally. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0205/p01s03-usju.html] The financial and education status of the thousands of BCC or laser visa violators is unknown; but is probably very similar to the illegal border crossers who walked across since they both come from the same population base.

One common means of visa overstaying is coming to the U.S. on a student visa and not going to school or not leaving the country after finishing school. [http://ktla.trb.com/la-me-visa22may22,0,2677069.story?coll=ktla-home-3] The number of foreign students in the United States is over 600,000.

==Profile summaries of illegal immigrants==
<center>
{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"
!align=“center”! colspan=8 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Profile Summaries of Illegal Immigrants January 2006
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
||Job Category||% of Illegal Immigrant||% of Native -1 w/8+ yr sch.||% of Average Native||# Illegal Immigrant||# Native 8+ yr sch.||# Average Native
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Managerial / Self Employed||1.50%||5.9%||32.2%||108,000||758,000||33,810,000
|-
!align=“right”|Retail / Business||4.90%||15.2%||29.2%||352,800||1,952,700||30,660,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Private||1.20%||1.0%||0.3%||86,400||128,500||315,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farm Mgr||1.60%||1.6%||1.1%||115,200||205,600||1,155,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Retail||18.20%||20.3%||10.3%||1,310,400||2,607,900||10,815,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farming -2||17.50%||2.9%||1.0%||1,260,000||372,600||1,050,000
|-
!align=“right”|Production||22.0%||20.1%||11.9%||1,584,000||2,582,200||12,495,000
|-
!align=“right”|Construction||33.0%||33.1%||14.0%||2,376,000||4,252,400||14,700,000
|-
|||||||||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Total # Working||7,500,000||12,847,000||108,000,000||||||
|-
!align="right"|Labor rate of Participation -3||82%||46.3%||66.30%||||||
|-
!align="right"|Unemployment Rate||7.0%||7.0%||4.10%||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Country Profile||||||Sex / age Profile||||||Worker profile||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Mexican|| 6,840,000 ||57%||men 18-39||5,300,000||43.7%||align="right"|4,500,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Latin & Central Amer.|| align="right"|3,000,000 ||25%||women 18-39||align="right"|3,500,000 ||29.1%|| align="right"|2,000,000 ||60%
|-
!align="right"|Asia|| 1,080,000 ||9%||more than 40|| 1,300,000 ||10.7%||align="right"|1,000,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Europe + Canada|| 720,000 ||6%||less than 18||align="right"|2,040,000 ||17.0%||align="right"|200,000 ||10%
|-
!align="right"|Rest of World|| 480,000 ||4%||Born / yr.||align="right"|300,000||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Totals Jan 2006||12,100,000 ||||Total Pop.||12,400,000||Total Working||7,500,000
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / year||align="right"|700,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||See Note 7
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / Month||align="right"|60,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||
|-
|}
</center>

# Native Population that most closely matches Illegal immigrant population is workers that never graduated from high school.
# Farm work is the only job category that illegal immigrants uniquely fill; but it does have a 30,000 H2-A visa program for it!
# Rate of Participation is fraction of total population seeking work
# Average Education of illegal immigrants may be less if the ~30% Central American's are included.
# How many criminals turn around after deportation and return is unknown; but it is significant that ICE catchs more than they deport.
# Estimated number may be low by several hundred thousand
# Other estimates of net increase are over 850,000 illegal immigrants / year.

Information Sources:

*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population
*[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2]A Description of the Immigrant Population
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm] Labor Participation less than High School
* [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1204.html] Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't
*[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/AnnualReportEnforcement2004.pdf] Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2004
*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/16.pdf] The Labor Force Status of Short-Term Unauthorized Workers
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf] Labor Statistics

==Illegal immigration economics==
The economics of illegal immigration are a highly contentious issue with much conflicting information presented. In 1990 the Congress appointed a bipartisan [[Commission on Immigration Reform]] to review the nation's policies and laws and to recommend changes. Information about the commission and its reports are available at http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/. In turn, the commission in 1995 asked the National Research Council of the National Science Foundation to convene a panel of experts to assess the demographic, economic, and fiscal consequences of immigration. The panel was asked to lay a scientific

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Education, Income and Taxes||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||Asia||Latin America||Other||U.S. / CA
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align =“right”|Years of Education *||14.2||14.7||9.2||12+||14.4
|-
!align =“right”|Household Income *||$42k||$57k||$32k||$42k||42k
|-
!align =“right”|Effective Federal tax rate **||18.7%||22%||5%||18.7%||18.7%
|-
!align =“right”|Effective State tax rate ***||10%||12%||9%||10%||10.9%
|-
!align =“right”|Average Federal taxes ||$7.9k||$12.5k||$1.6k||$7.9k||$7.9k
|-
!align =“right”|Average State taxes||$4.2k||$6.8k||$2.9||$4.2k||$4.5k
|-
|colspan=6|<hr>

|-
|colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' * Census data [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/effect2004/effect2004.html] **Average federal tax data from CBO estimates of effective Federal tax rates [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] ***State taxes are from California Statistical Abstract [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/STAT-ABS/toc.htm] Note: Most of the Federal and state taxes are paid by households earning significantly more than average.

|}

foundation for policymaking on some specific Immigration issues. [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/1.html]
The panel consisted of over 15 well respected professors from highly ranked universities [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The National Science Foundation panels charge was to address three key questions:
# What is the effect of immigration on the future size and composition of the U.S. population?
# What is the influence of immigration on the overall economy?
# What is the fiscal impact of immigration on federal, state, and local governments?
The report by 15+ researchers was issued after 3 years study was called “The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration” (1997) Edited by James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, ISBN 0-309-06356-6. The book is available on line at [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The enclosed table summarizes some of the National Academy of Sciences main conclusions.

Previous studies (and many subsequent} of the fiscal impacts of immigration were found to have serious deficiencies. Indeed in 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available. Many of these represented not science but advocacy from both sides of the immigration debate. These studies often offered an incomplete accounting of either the full list of taxpayer costs and benefits by ignoring some programs and taxes while including others. More important, the conceptual foundation of this research was rarely explicitly stated, offering opportunities to tilt the research toward the desired result. [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/2.html]

'''"As long as there is a virtually unlimited supply of potential immigrants, the nation must make choices on how many to admit and who they should be."''' National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1997.

{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| National Science Foundation Immigrant Economics Federal State Local Net Annual Fiscal Impact per Household [1997]||
|-
| colspan=12|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||%||Asia||%||Latin America||%||Other||%||All||% ||Total Cost *
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>
|--
!align =“right”|California||$1,631||26%||$1,081||25%|| ($7,206)||43%||$3,313||6%||($2.206)||100%|| ($20.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449||26%||$2,022||25%|| ($5,625)||43%||$3,052||6%|| ($1,613)||100%|| ($15.0) billion 
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrant Economics **
|-
!align =“right”|California||$1,631 ||6%||$1,081 ||9%|| ($7,206)||81%||$3,313 ||4%|| ($5,509)||100%|| ($22.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449 ||6%||$2,022 ||9%|| ($5,625)||81%||$3,052 ||4%|| ($4,225)||100%|| ($17.0) billion 
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>

|-
|colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' ''The New Americans'', National Science Foundation Table 6.4, pg 284[http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/284.html] * Total costs calculated for all U.S. immigrants, legal and illegal, 9.166 million households 1995 ** No adjustments for changes since 1995, assumes 4 million illegal households, percent distribution from Pew 
|}

One study put the cost to the federal government at $2,700/household [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html] On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal government are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Still another study put the net costs to California residents at $433/household for European/Canadian immigrants, $1,240/household for Asian immigrants and $8,182/household for Latin American workers [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/161.html TABLE 4-7a Net Fiscal Impacts by Nativity of Householder] pg 160-1. These are the costs calculated for all immigrants legal and illegal. The costs for illegal immigrants are significantly higher since they have even less education, earn even less income and often avoid paying even the small taxes they are elgible for.

Madeleine Cosman contends that the requirement of hospitals to offer service to illegal aliens regardless of the alien's ability to pay has led to many hospitals running a deficit and being forced to close.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf] Also, free public education is extended to all children in the U.S. regardless of their citizen status. The matricula consular and passports are usually considered legal identification by many police agencies and governments.

The results are not surprising given that nearly all modern developed societies like Sweden, Canada and the United States heavily subsidize the cost of all government services for low income people by heavily taxing the higher income people. In the United states the effective federal tax rate considering all federal taxes as calculated by the Congressional Budget office runs from 4.8% for the bottom quintile [0-20%](avg. income = $34k) to 25% for the last quintile [80-100%] of income households. The bottom two income quintiles, with exemptions, are nearly exempt from all income tax and social security taxes are heavily subsidized. Many illegal workers claim they have income tax witheld not bothering to mention it is nearly always negligibly small.[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] The state's tax systems vary more but nearly always tax the higher income people much more than the lower income people. In today's society, unlike the societies of 100 years ago when immigration previously peaked, you will never get net gains for society by importing a bunch of subsidized high school drop outs into it. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

Dr. George Borgas of the University of San Diego and National Bureau of Economic Research points out that much of the impact of immigration on wages and unemployment is difficult to determine. The general rule of thumb is that
"If we could observe a number of closed labor markets which immigrants penetrate randomly, we can then relate the change in the wage of skilled and unskilled workers to the proportion of immigrants in the population (after adjusting for the skill composition of both the native population and the immigrant flow). The estimated parameters would summarize the impact on immigrants on native employment opportunities."[http://www.economics.uni-linz.ac.at/kohler/studneu/semtradepol/pdfs/borjas-94.pdf Borgas] The majority of studies on the economic impact of immigration have been built around this rule of thumb. However, illegal immigration opens up labor markets and destroys the premise upon which studies of the economic impact of immigrants are built when attempting to apply them to illegal immigration.

===Economic impact of immigrants===
The following articles did not examine illegal immigration in particular (and run up against the problem pointed out be Dr. Borgas mentioned above).

In an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal (1994), Richard K. Vedder, Professor of Economics at the Ohio University, states that his study found no statistically meaningful relationship between immigration and unemployment and that if such a relationship exists, it appears to work in the opposite direction. <ref>Vedder, Richard K. ''Immigration Doesn’t Displace Natives'', March 28, 1994, [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?ID=269 Available online] "Using several different periods and approaches, we consistently found no statistically meaningful relationship between immigration and unemployment. However, if there is any correlation, it would appear to be negative: Higher immigration is associated with lower unemployment." </ref> He goes on to postulate that immigrants work harder for cheaper wages than citizens Studies by the Urban Institute estimate that two thirds of ilegal immigrants earn less than half the minimum wage {{fact}}. Studies by the Rand Corporation <ref>McCart hy, Kevin F., Vernez, Georges, ''Immigration in a Changing Economy'', Rand Corporation (1997), ISBN 0-8330-2496-5</ref>

An article by Leon F. Bouvier from the "Center for Immigration Studies", cites studies by two authoritative US agencies, the [[Council of Economic Advisors]] and the [[Department of Labor]] that supports the assertion that immigration does not cause job displacement. <ref> Bouvier, Leon F. , ''Immigration and Looser Labor Markets: Unemployment Outlook in Major Immigrant-Receiving Areas'', December 1990. [http://www.cis.org/articles/1990/dec90.html Available online] "The idea that immigration does not cause job displacement has been aggressively argued by many economists during the 19805, and supported by two authoritative U.S. agencies, the Council of Economic Advisors and the Department of labor."</ref>.

==2004 illegal immigration debate==
{{main|United States immigration debate}}
In 2004, [[United States]] [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] proposed a [[guest worker]] program to absorb migrant laborers who would otherwise come to the U.S. as [[illegal alien]]s. However, the details were left to legislators. In 2005, the [[United States Congress|Congress]] began creating legislation to change the current [[illegal immigration]] policies. The legislation approved by the U.S. [[House of Representatives]] led to massive protests.

See also [[2006 United States immigration reform protests]].

==Legal issues==

===Legal and political status===

===Citizenship and the children of immigrants===
Before passage of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], in 1865 after the conclusion of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], the United States commonly granted citizenship on the basis of [[jus soli]]. The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to protect newly emancipated [[freedmen|former slaves]], and in keeping with the jus soli tradition of the Republic has been interpreted by the [[United States Supreme Court]], in precedent set by ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'' in 1898, to cover everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents, with the exception of the children of diplomats. The decision in ''Wong Kim Ark'' upheld the ''jus soli'' which had often been practiced before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In short, the Court found that the 14th Amendment re-affirmed ''jus soli''. ''Wong Kim Ark'' did not overturn or weaken ''Elk v. Wilkins''; it simply defined ''jus soli''. The Court found that Wong Kim Ark, having been born to Chinese citizens, who were lawfully residing within the United States, and with the intention of amicably obeying its laws, was a citizen of the United States. Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly not''' citizens:
* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Children born to [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the [[Indian Citizenship Act of 1924]])
The following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly''' citizens:
* Children born to US citizens
* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people, and obeying its laws.

Under these rulings, the citizenship status of the U.S.-born children of [[illegal immigrant]]s is in the same gray area as people born in foreign countries of foreign parents - that is, neither ruling explicitly denies or grants them citizenship. Various aspects of both ''Elk v. Wilkins'' and ''Wong Kim Ark'' lend reasoning that such children are not US citizens. ''Wong Kim Ark'' is often cited as granting the children of illegal aliens US citizenship, but the ruling is explicit in that it applies to the children of aliens who are legally within the United States. Some may even argue that it implicitly denies them citizenship by doing so. However, in terms of Supreme Court rulings, or the rulings of any court, implicit is meaningless. The ''status quo'' is that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens, and it will remain that way until government policy changes or is challenged, and the Supreme Court inevitably makes an explicit ruling.

Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a [[constitutional amendment]]. The proposed changes are usually one of the following:
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or [[permanent resident]] (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States (requires an Act of Congress, probably challenged to the Supreme Court).

Representative [[Nathan Deal]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] of [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], introduced legislation in [[2005]] to assert that U.S.-born children are only "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (and therefore eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment) if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Similarly, Representative [[Ron Paul]] of [[Texas]] has introduced a constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Neither of these measures has come to a vote. Even if Rep. Deal's legislation were passed by Congress, it would likely be struck down by the courts based on the precedent established in ''U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark'', which allows for the US born children of lawful visitors to be citizens as well. The issue remains controversial, reflecting both tensions about immigration and disputes about the appropriate balance of power between the courts and the Congress.

Children of families where at least one parent is an illegal immigrant are sometimes referred to as ''[[Anchor baby|anchor babies]]'' because once the illegal family's mother gives birth to the baby inside the U.S., the baby is said to "anchor" them to the U.S.. Legally the illegal parent or parents can still be deported so the anchor is more perceived than real. However, some illegal immigrant advocates and some of the children with parents of mixed legal immigration status feel the term "Anchor Baby" is [[pejorative]]. Some prefer the term "Permanently Residing Under Color Of Law," or "PRUCOL." PRUCOL is a broadly-defined status which covers a variety of situations, including, but not limited to, those persons who are appealing for an adjustment of status as refugee, or persons who are awaiting hearings to decide status and final legal disposition of their case. There are an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 children per year born to parents of mixed legal immigration status.{{fact}}

===Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986===
The [[Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]] (IRCA) made the hiring of an individual without documents an offense for the first time. Enforcement has been lax, but major businesses have often been found to use illegal immigrants. The act is somewhat redundant since the forging of government documents (fake immigration documents or providing falsified social security numbers) is already a felony, and for most companies such documents must be provided to the government in its tax filings. However, the government does not notify those whose identities have been stolen for the falsified social security numbers, thus making it difficult to estimate the extent of the problem. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/]

===Legal cases===
Some major companies have been accused of hiring undocumented workers.

* [[Tyson Foods]] was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its [[chicken]] packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee acquitted the company after evidence was presented that [[Tyson Foods]] went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.
* [[Wal-Mart]] was convicted of using illegal sub contracted [[janitor|janitorial]] workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge or permission.
* [[Philippe Kahn]], who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company [[Borland International]] without ever getting [[United States Permanent Resident Card|proper legal status]].

===Use of military to defend border===
See [[United States immigration debate]]

===Immigration with and without quotas===
The immigration quota system was first expanded with the [[Emergency Quota Act]] of 1921 which was used to reduce the influx of East and Southern European immigrants who were coming to the country in large numbers from the turn of the century. This immigration was further reduced by the [[Immigration Act of 1924]] which was structured to maintain the cultural and ethnic traditions of the United States.

There has never been a quota for Jews or any other religious group, only for people from specific countries. The waiting list for the few available immigration spots grew enormously in the 1930s in the U.S. and throughout the free world that was accepting any immigration. In the 1930's the number of Jewish immigrant applicants seeking visa to the U.S. alone exceeded the quota for all of Germany. [[Adolf Hitler]] started his [[Holocast]] program in the 1930's that ultimately led to the death of over 10,000,000 people including 6,000,000 Jews. The [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] administration had nearly shut down immigration during the decade of the [[Great Depression of 1929]]. In 1929 there were 279,678 immigrants recorded and in 1933 there were only 23,068 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. By 1939 recorded immigrants had crept back up to 82,998 but then the advent of World War II drove it back down to 23,725 in 1943 increasing slowly to 38,119 by 1945 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. After 1946 about 600,000 of Europe's Displaced Person (DP's) refugees were admitted under special laws outside the country quotas, and in the 1960s and 1970s large numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/] were admitted under special laws outside all quotas. Congress passed the [[Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965]] which esssentially removed all nation-specific quotas, while retaining an overall quota, and included immigrants from Mexico and the Western Hemisphere for the first time with their own quotas. It also put a large part of immigration, so-called family reunification, outside the quota system. This dramatically changed the number, type and composition of the new arrivals from mostly European, to predominantly poor [[Latino]] and [[Asian]]. It also dramatically increased the number of illegal immigrants as many poorer people now had family or friends in the U.S. that attracted them there. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] In 1986, the [[Immigration Reform and Control Act]] (IRCA) was passed, creating amnesty for about 3,000,000 illegal immigrants already in the United States. Critics believe IRCA just intensified the illegal immigration flow as those granted amnesty illegally brought more of their friends and family into the U.S.. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

Without quotas on large segments of the immigration flow, legal immigration to the U.S. surged and soon became largely family based "Chain immigration" where familys brought in a never ending chain of off quota new immigrant family members. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States are now at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000. Net Illegal immigration has also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970's, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980's to over 500,000 per year in the 1990's to over 700,000 per year in the 2000's. Total illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf], [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html])

See also:[[Immigration to the United States]]

===Other===
There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics.
* During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents.
* [[Linda Chavez]], [[Zoe Baird]] and [[Tom Tancredo]] are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "[[Nannygate]]". In Tancredo's case, a home contractor allegedly hired illegal aliens.

==Historical context==
Every wave of immigration into the United States has faced fear and hostility, especially during times of economic hardship, political turmoil, or war: in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, one of our nation's first immigration laws, to keep out all people of Chinese origin; during the "Red Scare" of the 1920s, thousands of foreign-born people suspected of political radicalism were arrested and brutalized; many were deported without a hearing; and in 1942, 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned in camps until the end of World War II.
===Chinese experience===
In 1882 the [[Chinese Exclusion Act (United States)|Chinese Exclusion Act]] had cut off nearly all [[China|Chinese]] immigration. The first laws creating a [[quota]] for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers. Ngai (2003) shows that the new laws were the beginning of mass illegal immigration, because they created a new class of persons - illegal aliens - whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility. This contradiction challenged received notions of sovereignty and democracy in several ways. First, the increase in the number of illegal entries created a new emphasis on control of the nation's borders - especially the long Canadian border. Second, the application of the deportation laws gave rise to an oppositional political and legal discourse, which imagined "deserving" and "undeserving" illegal immigrants and, therefore, just and unjust deportations. These categories were constructed out of modern ideas about crime, sexual morality, the family, and race. In the 1930s federal deportation policy became the object of legal reform to allow for administrative discretion in deportation cases. Just as restriction and deportation "made" illegal aliens, administrative discretion "unmade" illegal aliens. Administrative law reform became an unlikely site where problems of national belonging and inclusion played out.

===History of border security===
For a period of time in the 1990s U.S. Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal aliens and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR infrared devices, and helicopters. In conjunction with the U.S. Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. Sher Zieve claims this was very effective but temporary as the illegal traffic resumed as soon as the military withdrew.[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]. After the [[September 11, 2001 attack]]s the United States looked at the feasibility of placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure. [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4018573.html]], [http://newsfromtheborder.blogspot.com/2006/07/del-rio-border-influx-drops.html], [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/national-guard-presence-cutting-number.php]

In December, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to build a [[separation barrier]] along parts of the border not already protected by a separation barriers. A later vote in the [[United States Senate]] on [[May 17]], [[2006]] included a plan to blockade 860 miles of the border with vehicle barriers and triple-layer fencing along with granting amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and roughly doubling legal immigration. [[Bay Buchanan]], head of [[Team America]], an [[immigration reduction]] [[political action committee]], estimated that it would take less than six months to build a 2,000 mile, triple-layer fence and would cost roughly $1.5 - 3 billion. On the same show, Buchanan claimed that the 1990s-era border security program [[Operation Gatekeeper]] cut down unauthorized immigration by 90%. The actual numbers are not quite that high with 565,581 apprehensions in San Diego district in fiscal year 1992 before Operation Gatekeeper and its enhanced border fencing and policing to a low of 100,681 apprehensions in in 2002--an 82% reduction. Apprehensions in 2006 are at 138,608 or a 75% reduction. [http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/news/SDUT-4-16-06.pdf]
Apprehensions have gone up in other areas as border security was enhanced in San Diego and El Paso which saw a similar drop in apprehensions.

==References==
<references />

==Further reading==
* Barkan, Elliott R. "Return of the Nativists? California Public Opinion and Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s." ''Social Science History'' 2003 27(2): 229-283. in Project Muse
* Borjas, G.J. "The economics of immigration," ''Journal of Economic Literature'', v 32 (1994), pp. 1667-717
* Cull, Nicholas J. and Carrasco, Davíd, ed. ''Alambrista and the US-Mexico Border: Film, Music, and Stories of Undocumented Immigrants'' U. of New Mexico Press, 2004. 225 pp.
* Thomas J. Espenshade; "Unauthorized Immigration to the United States" ''Annual Review of Sociology''. Volume: 21. 1995. pp 195+.
* Flores, William V. "New Citizens, New Rights: Undocumented Immigrants and Latino Cultural Citizenship" ''Latin American Perspectives'' 2003 30(2): 87-100
* Lisa Magaña, ''Straddling the Border: Immigration Policy and the INS'' (2003
* Mohl, Raymond A. "Latinization in the Heart of Dixie: Hispanics in Late-twentieth-century Alabama" ''Alabama Review'' 2002 55(4): 243-274. Issn: 0002-4341
* Ngai, Mae M. ''Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America'' (2004),
* Ngai, Mae M. "The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921-1965" ''Law and History Review'' 2003 21(1): 69-107. Issn: 0738-2480 Fulltext in History Cooperative

== See also ==
* [[Immigration reduction]]
* [[United States immigration debate]]
* [[Free immigration]]
* [[History of US immigration]]
* [[Immigrant deaths along the United States Border]]
* [[Migra]]
* [[Nativism]]
* [[NumbersUSA]]
* [[H-1B visa]]
* [[Mara Salvatrucha]]
* [[Minuteman Project]]
* [[S. 2611]]

== Footnotes ==
{{fnb|1}}The [[Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS) defines unauthorized immigrants as “foreign-born persons who entered without inspection or who violated the terms of a temporary admission and who have not acquired Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status or gained temporary protection against removal by applying for an immigration benefit. For example, the following foreign-born persons are not considered to be unauthorized residents in these estimates: refugees, asylees, and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and aliens who are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings. [[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf]]

{{fnb|2}}The [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] and the [[U.S. Border Patrol]] use ''illegal alien'' as their preferred term.
When the term ''undocumented worker'' is used, it generally encompasses all people who enter without documents, including children, the elderly, and those who do not work. The term ''illegal immigrant'' is the preferred language of the [[AP Stylebook]].

==External links==
===News Coverage===
* [[Orange County Register]]: “ 'Visa overstayers' fuel illegal population” - April 5, 2006 [http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1087193.php]
* [[USA Today]]: Text of President Bush's Immigration Law Reform Speech on May 16, 2006 [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-15-bush-speech-text_x.htm?csp=34]
* [[CNN]]: Reaction to Bush immigration speech - May 15, 2006 [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration.reax/index.html]
* [[Miami Herald]]: “No human being is `illegal” – May 24, 2006 [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14652801.htm]
* [[Washington Post]]: “One Sheriff sees immigration answer as simple – May 20, 2006 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]
* [[Associated Press]]: “Ariz. Posse to Arrest Illegal Immigrants” –May 4, 2006 [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html]
* [[NY Times]] “Arizona County Uses New Law to Look for Illegal Immigrants” –May 9, 2006 [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]
* [[City Journal]] “How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy” –no date [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] A publication of [[The Manhattan Institute]]

===Others===
*Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS22026.pdf] a report of the [[Congressional Research Service]] (January 13, 2005) provided by the [[Federation of American Scientists]].

[[Category:Immigration law]]
[[Category:Immigration to the United States]]
[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Legal categories of people]]

[[es:Inmigración ilegal]]

Illegal immigration to the United States

2006-08-06T22:39:30Z

71.74.209.82: /* Illegal immigration economics */

{{mergeto|United States immigration debate}}

{{Cleanup-references}}
'''Illegal immigration to the United States''' refers to the migration of people across the [[border|national borders]] of the [[United States]] that is in violation of U.S. [[Immigration law|immigration]] and [[United States nationality law|nationality law]]. The terms ''illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented alien, undocumented immigrant'', and ''undocumented worker'', are common terms used to refer to persons residing in the United States without either U.S. [[citizenship]] or a valid immigration status. {{fn|1}}.
In the United States the term ‘’undocumented alien’’ typically refers to a foreign national who entered the country without valid travel documents or that overstayed the limited period of time granted upon entry. For example, a tourist who enters with a valid [B1 visa] and is granted a stay of 15 days and remains in-country for 30 days is an ‘’undocumented alien’’. The holder of a valid B1 (tourist) visa is barred from accepting employment. By accepting employment this hypothetical tourist becomes an ‘’undocumented worker’’ (whether he is an ‘’undocumented alien’’ or not). Not all ‘’undocumented aliens’’ are ‘’undocumented workers’’. For example, the visas overstay tourist who doesn’t work or the illegal crossing stay-at-home wife.
{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrants Info||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Education Profile||Number||Percent||
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Less then 12 yr.||align="right"|6,700,000||67.0%||
|-
!align="right"|High School||align="right"|3,000,000||30.0%||
|-
!align="right"|College Graduate||align="right"|300,000||3.0%||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Total Illegal Pop.||align="right"|12,000,000 ||Jan 2006||
|-
!align="right"|Total Working||align="right"|7,500,000
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Caught|| align="right"|202,842||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Deported|| align="right"|88,895||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Caught and Released|| align="right"|1,010,000+||2005||
|-
!align="right"|Illegal Immigrants/year|| align="right"|1,500,000+||Total||
|-
!align="right"|Voluntary returns/year||align="right"| - 200,000+||2005
|-
!align="right"|Change of Status/year||align="right"| - 600,000+||2005
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Net Increase/year||align="right"| 700,000+||Illegal Immigrants||
|-
|colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] A Description of the Immigrant Population [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2] 
|}

==Methods used to enter the U.S. illegally==
===Overview===
According to the 1997 report issued by the Binational Study on Migration and commissioned by the U.S. and Mexican governments,
* One-third or 2.3 to 2.4 million of the Mexican-born US residents are unauthorized, despite the legalization of two million unauthorized Mexicans in 1987-88, and subsequent legal immigration that unified their families.
*The total number of people from all countries who entered illegally or overstayed their visas in 1996 was estimated by the INS to be 275,000
*US sources suggest that the number of Mexican-born persons increased by two million between 1990 and 1996, and the binational study estimated that legal immigrants were the smallest part of the increase, 510,000, followed by unauthorized, 630,000, and then 760,000 SAWs and their family members. <ref>Migration News Vol. 13 No. 3, December 2006 [http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=1329_0_5_0 Migration News website] Retrieved Aug 2006</ref>

Three years later, in 2000, [[United States presidential election, 2000|US Presidential]] candidate [[Patrick Buchanan]] ([[Reform Party of the United States of America|Reform Party]]) asserted during and interview on [[National Public Radio]] that half a million people a year (a little less than double the figure the Binational Study stated)
are entering the USA illegally.<ref>Patrick Buchanan, National Public Radio interview, "Talk of the Nation", May 30, 2000). "Our levels of immigration now in the last 30 years have been enormous. It’s almost over a million legal immigrants a year, and half a million illegals who come here and stay." </ref>

According to the [[Pew Hispanic Center]] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. By 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. <ref>Rise, Peak and Decline: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004, Pew Hispanic Center [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53 Available online]</ref>

Another report of the Pew Hispanic center, cites that 45% of unauthorized migrants, had initially visas for limited amounts of time, bur over-stayed their visas, and that a small percentage of these entered the country from Mexico by means of a [[Border Crossing Card]]. <ref>Pew Hispanic Center, ''Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population '' (May 2006) [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]"As much as 45% of the total unauthorized migrant population entered the country with visas that allowed them to reside in the U.S. for a limited amount of time. Known as "overstayers", these migrants became part of the unauthorized population when they remained in the country after their visas had expired. Another small share of the unauthorized migrant population entered the country legally from Mexico using a Border Crossing Card, a document that allows short visits limited to the border region, and then violated the terms of admission. The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."</ref>

====Illegal border crossing====
{{sectNPOV}}
That same article goes on to state, "The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."
[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]
meaning that they crossed a border without passing possible criminal or health inspection or having a valid passport and [[Visa (document)|visa]] inspected by an immigration officer at a Port of Entry (POE). It is estimated that over a million people cross the border illegally each year, most of whom are of Mexican origin{fact}. The rest are labeled "Other Than Mexicans" (OTM), of whom a majority are [[Central America]]ns{fact}.

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a [[misdemeanor]] for the first offense and a [[felony]] for subsequent violations{{fact}}. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the future{{fact}}. Immigrants who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. [[H.R. 4437]] would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

According to a report by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary on 1997, "Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling."<ref>[ http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM ORDER SECURITY AND DETERRING ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary</ref>
Another large scale multi-million dollar criminal operations connected to illegal immigration is identity theft. [http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html]
The higher crime rates associated with all this traffic has led to extensive efforts on the part of individual sheriffs and communities trying to prevent further damage to their property and communities. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html], [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html], [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss], [[http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]

In 2006 the number of apprehensions on the border is almost the same as last year through 16 July 2006 at 936,000 [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20060722-9999-1n22crossers.html ]. However, according to many US Border Patrol agents, they were instructed by their leadership to "keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited" as one US Border Patrol agent put it [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm].
Some of the traffic has spread away from the dangerous Tucson districts deserts where over a hundred illegal immigrants have died so far this year compared to 153 in 2005. [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060722/images/border.pdf]

[[Image:ElPaso-Juarez-EO.JPG|thumb|right|200px|El Paso (top) and Ciudad Juárez (bottom) seen from earth orbit; the Rio Grande is the thin line separating the two cities through the middle of the photograph.]]
[[Image:TJ Border Beach.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Beach at Border Field State Park near [[San Ysidro, California]]. (Tire tracks from Border Patrol jeeps are visible on the beach.)]]

Border Patrol activity is concentrated around big border cities such as [[San Diego, California|San Diego]] and [[El Paso, Texas|El Paso]] which already have [[separation barriers]] and extensive Border Agent coverage. Each state in the United States has a [[United States National Guard|National Guard]] organization that could, in principal, be placed on the border at a state governor's discretion to assist with border security; many states also have a backup to the National Gurard called the [[State Defense Force]] that could, in an emergency, also be activated for this purpose. Arizona and New Mexico have currently declared the counties that border [[Mexico]] to be under serious duress caused by uncontrolled illegal immigrant traffic, thereby enabling governors to deploy National Guardsmen to the international border. Arizona has exercised this option but New Mexico has not.

In an article published by Renew America, a website which defines itself as a "Alan Keyes' website for grassroots activism -- designed to foster a nationwide movement to restore America to its founding ideals", former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard asserts that "The whole U.S.-Mexico border could be sealed with as few as 100 helicopters equipped with FLIR (forward looking infrared) scopes, and a few hundred men equipped with state of the art sensors, scopes and other electronics..." [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]

See also [[United States–Mexico border]], [[United States-Canada border]].

=====From countries with no visa agreements=====
Immigrants from nations that do not have automatic visa agreements, or who would not otherwise qualify for a visa, sometimes cross the borders illegally. Individuals from [[North Korea]], [[Libya]], [[Cuba]], [[Syria]], [[Sudan]], and [[Iran]] are required to submit to strict questioning from U.S. officials before their applications are processed. Their applications take longer to process than those for visitors and immigrants from other countries. [http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1300.html]

Often, these individuals enter from a land border using falsified documentation from a third country. For instance, [[Ahmed Ressam]], a member of [[Al Qaeda]], originally from [[Algeria]], entered [[Canada]] with a falsified [[France|French]] passport. Once in Canada, he procured a false Canadian passport to enter the United States. In the case of Cuba, the U.S. offers political asylum to many Cubans, but they first must reach U.S. soil. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//shows/trail/etc/fake.html]

====Visa or Border Crossing Card overstayers====

A visa overstayer is someone who has entered the United States legally and then illegally overstayed his or her visa or violated the restrictions on Border Crossing Card (BCC) or laser visa. Fraudulent and forged visa and BCC passes are included in this category. An estimated average 40-60% of all illegal immigrants to the U.S. entered this way. The number of overstayers varies considerably from country to country depending on the location of the country, the cultural, political, social and economic conditions in a given country in a given time. The PEW Hispanic institute reported [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf] that the INS had developed statistics that showed 3.2% of all Central and South America visas are overstayed. A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study gives estimates for all countries showing that China, India, Korea, and the Philippines had violation rates as high as 8%.[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] In general the poorer the country they came from the more likely the foreign visitor was to violate their visa.

GAO estimated that 40-60% of all Mexican illegal immigrants got here by violating their border crossing document's conditions. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] In operation Tarmac where ICE and DHS checked airport employees for legal employment they found 27% of the over 4900 violators found were visa or BCC violators. In one of the rare ICE check ups on a grocery chain they found that over 57% of the several hundred violators were visa overstayers or BCC violators ([http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf| Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered Defense]) patrol officials believe Visa violator numbers would increase if it became more difficult to illegally sneak across the border as illegal border crossers switched techniques. About 33% of all Central American illegal immigrants came by overstaying their visa with the rest traveling through Mexico to reach the border and then crossing illegally. At lest 95+% of all illegal South American, European, and Asians got here by overstaying their visa. (The other ~5% represent illegal immigrants smuggled by ship or plane) An increasing number of illegal immigrants are now flying to Mexico or Canada and then crossing the border illegally by foot or car. The ICE agents on the border report a 52% increase in border violators caught that are Other Than Mexican (OTM). The two main sources of illegal visa violators are Mexico and Canada which the U.S. has a large amount of cross border traffic with. Other estimates done by the GAO show that the overstayers and BCC violators from Mexico alone in the year 2001 may exceed 2,000,000 /year. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/border_crossing_entry_data/us_mexico/index.html] reported that in 2003 (the last year of available statistics) there were 79,000,000 and 245,000,000 border crossings between Canada and Mexico respectively and the US. The tourist bureau shows that there were less Mexicans (as reported by their government) doing all this traffic than their were Canadians (as reported by their government).[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] Mexico has roughly three times the population of Canada. The latest ICE statistics show that they captured 30,000 Brazilians after they crossed the U.S. Mexican border illegally for the first time in 2004. Two of the terrorists behind the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] were visa overstayers. The federal government historically has not extensibly checked up on visa holders once they are in the country; but visa checks has been used extensively after 9 September 2001 to check up on illegal immigrants from countries with large populations sympathic to terrorists. Several hundred visa violators were deported and several thousand more left voluntarily rather than face deportation hearings. {{fact}}

To help improve the lack of good information on visa overstayers the new US-VISIT program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States as well as requiring electronic readable passports containing this information. Information collected is checked against lookout databases to ensure that known or suspected terrorists, criminals, and previous U.S. immigration law violators are not admitted. [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-11_Feb05.pdf] and then checked against their eventual departure. US-VISIT entry procedures have been operational in the secondary inspection areas of the 50 busiest land border ports of entry since December 29, 2004, and are also in place at 115 airports and 15 seaports.[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4858] Early in 2007 the DHS is hoping to replace the laser visa or boundary crossing cards with People Access Security Service (PASS) card, as a secure identity document for people traveling to or from Canada or Mexico. [http://www.thebta.org/syndicate/news/archives/cat_us-visit.html] These would include Radio Frequency Identification Data (RFID) for ease of transit and security.

Visa overstayers violators tend to be somewhat more educated and be better off financially than those who walked crossed the border illegally. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0205/p01s03-usju.html] The financial and education status of the thousands of BCC or laser visa violators is unknown; but is probably very similar to the illegal border crossers who walked across since they both come from the same population base.

One common means of visa overstaying is coming to the U.S. on a student visa and not going to school or not leaving the country after finishing school. [http://ktla.trb.com/la-me-visa22may22,0,2677069.story?coll=ktla-home-3] The number of foreign students in the United States is over 600,000.

==Profile summaries of illegal immigrants==
<center>
{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"
!align=“center”! colspan=8 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Profile Summaries of Illegal Immigrants January 2006
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
||Job Category||% of Illegal Immigrant||% of Native -1 w/8+ yr sch.||% of Average Native||# Illegal Immigrant||# Native 8+ yr sch.||# Average Native
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Managerial / Self Employed||1.50%||5.9%||32.2%||108,000||758,000||33,810,000
|-
!align=“right”|Retail / Business||4.90%||15.2%||29.2%||352,800||1,952,700||30,660,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Private||1.20%||1.0%||0.3%||86,400||128,500||315,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farm Mgr||1.60%||1.6%||1.1%||115,200||205,600||1,155,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Retail||18.20%||20.3%||10.3%||1,310,400||2,607,900||10,815,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farming -2||17.50%||2.9%||1.0%||1,260,000||372,600||1,050,000
|-
!align=“right”|Production||22.0%||20.1%||11.9%||1,584,000||2,582,200||12,495,000
|-
!align=“right”|Construction||33.0%||33.1%||14.0%||2,376,000||4,252,400||14,700,000
|-
|||||||||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Total # Working||7,500,000||12,847,000||108,000,000||||||
|-
!align="right"|Labor rate of Participation -3||82%||46.3%||66.30%||||||
|-
!align="right"|Unemployment Rate||7.0%||7.0%||4.10%||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Country Profile||||||Sex / age Profile||||||Worker profile||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Mexican|| 6,840,000 ||57%||men 18-39||5,300,000||43.7%||align="right"|4,500,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Latin & Central Amer.|| align="right"|3,000,000 ||25%||women 18-39||align="right"|3,500,000 ||29.1%|| align="right"|2,000,000 ||60%
|-
!align="right"|Asia|| 1,080,000 ||9%||more than 40|| 1,300,000 ||10.7%||align="right"|1,000,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Europe + Canada|| 720,000 ||6%||less than 18||align="right"|2,040,000 ||17.0%||align="right"|200,000 ||10%
|-
!align="right"|Rest of World|| 480,000 ||4%||Born / yr.||align="right"|300,000||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Totals Jan 2006||12,100,000 ||||Total Pop.||12,400,000||Total Working||7,500,000
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / year||align="right"|700,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||See Note 7
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / Month||align="right"|60,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||
|-
|}
</center>

# Native Population that most closely matches Illegal immigrant population is workers that never graduated from high school.
# Farm work is the only job category that illegal immigrants uniquely fill; but it does have a 30,000 H2-A visa program for it!
# Rate of Participation is fraction of total population seeking work
# Average Education of illegal immigrants may be less if the ~30% Central American's are included.
# How many criminals turn around after deportation and return is unknown; but it is significant that ICE catchs more than they deport.
# Estimated number may be low by several hundred thousand
# Other estimates of net increase are over 850,000 illegal immigrants / year.

Information Sources:

*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population
*[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2]A Description of the Immigrant Population
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm] Labor Participation less than High School
* [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1204.html] Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't
*[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/AnnualReportEnforcement2004.pdf] Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2004
*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/16.pdf] The Labor Force Status of Short-Term Unauthorized Workers
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf] Labor Statistics

==Illegal immigration economics==
The economics of illegal immigration are a highly contentious issue with much conflicting information presented. In 1990 the Congress appointed a bipartisan [[Commission on Immigration Reform]] to review the nation's policies and laws and to recommend changes. Information about the commission and its reports are available at http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/. In turn, the commission in 1995 asked the National Research Council of the National Science Foundation to convene a panel of experts to assess the demographic, economic, and fiscal consequences of immigration. The panel was asked to lay a scientific

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Education, Income and Taxes||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||Asia||Latin America||Other||U.S. / CA
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align =“right”|Years of Education *||14.2||14.7||9.2||12+||14.4
|-
!align =“right”|Household Income *||$42k||$57k||$32k||$42k||42k
|-
!align =“right”|Effective Federal tax rate **||18.7%||22%||5%||18.7%||18.7%
|-
!align =“right”|Effective State tax rate ***||10%||12%||9%||10%||10.9%
|-
!align =“right”|Average Federal taxes ||$7.9k||$12.5k||$1.6k||$7.9k||$7.9k
|-
!align =“right”|Average State taxes||$4.2k||$6.8k||$2.9||$4.2k||$4.5k
|-
|colspan=6|<hr>

|-
|colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' * Census data [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/effect2004/effect2004.html] **Average federal tax data from CBO estimates of effective Federal tax rates [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] ***State taxes are from California Statistical Abstract [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/STAT-ABS/toc.htm] Note: Most of the Federal and state taxes are paid by households earning significantly more than average.

|}

foundation for policymaking on some specific Immigration issues. [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/1.html]
The panel consisted of over 15 well respected professors from highly ranked universities [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The National Science Foundation panels charge was to address three key questions:
# What is the effect of immigration on the future size and composition of the U.S. population?
# What is the influence of immigration on the overall economy?
# What is the fiscal impact of immigration on federal, state, and local governments?
The report by 15+ researchers was issued after 3 years study was called “The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration” (1997) Edited by James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, ISBN 0-309-06356-6. The book is available on line at [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The enclosed table summarizes some of the National Academy of Sciences main conclusions.

Previous studies (and many subsequent} of the fiscal impacts of immigration were found to have serious deficiencies. Indeed in 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available. Many of these represented not science but advocacy from both sides of the immigration debate. These studies often offered an incomplete accounting of either the full list of taxpayer costs and benefits by ignoring some programs and taxes while including others. More important, the conceptual foundation of this research was rarely explicitly stated, offering opportunities to tilt the research toward the desired result. [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/2.html]

'''"As long as there is a virtually unlimited supply of potential immigrants, the nation must make choices on how many to admit and who they should be."''' National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1997.

{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| National Science Foundation Immigrant Economics Federal State Local Net Annual Fiscal Impact per Household [1997]||
|-
| colspan=12|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||%||Asia||%||Latin America||%||Other||%||All||% ||Total Cost *
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>
|--
!align =“right”|California||$1,631||26%||$1,081||25%|| ($7,206)||43%||$3,313||6%||($2.206)||100%|| ($20.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449||26%||$2,022||25%|| ($5,625)||43%||$3,052||6%|| ($1,613)||100%|| ($15.0) billion 
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrant Economics **
|-
!align =“right”|California||$1,631 ||6%||$1,081 ||9%|| ($7,206)||81%||$3,313 ||4%|| ($5,509)||100%|| ($22.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449 ||6%||$2,022 ||9%|| ($5,625)||81%||$3,052 ||4%|| ($4,225)||100%|| ($17.0) billion 
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>

|-
|colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' ''The New Americans'', National Science Foundation Table 6.4, pg 284[http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/284.html] * Total costs calculated for all U.S. immigrants, legal and illegal, 9.166 million households 1995 ** No adjustments for changes since 1995, assumes 4 million illegal households, percent distribution from Pew 
|}

One study put the cost to the federal government at $2,700/household [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html] On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal government are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Still another study put the net costs to California residents at $433/household for European/Canadian immigrants, $1,240/household for Asian immigrants and $8,182/household for Latin American workers [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/161.html TABLE 4-7a Net Fiscal Impacts by Nativity of Householder] pg 160-1. These are the costs calculated for all immigrants legal and illegal. The costs for illegal immigrants are significantly higher since they have even less education, earn even less income and often avoid paying even the small taxes they are elgible for.

Madeleine Cosman contends that the requirement of hospitals to offer service to illegal aliens regardless of the alien's ability to pay has led to many hospitals running a deficit and being forced to close.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf] Also, free public education is extended to all children in the U.S. regardless of their citizen status. The matricula consular and passports are usually considered legal identification by many police agencies and governments.

The results are not surprising given that nearly all modern developed societies like Sweden, Canada and the United States heavily subsidize the cost of all government services for low income people by heavily taxing the higher income people. In the United states the effective federal tax rate considering all federal taxes as calculated by the Congressional Budget office runs from 4.8% for the bottom quintile [0-20%](avg. income = $34k) to 25% for the last quintile [80-100%] of income households. The bottom two income quintiles, with exemptions, are nearly exempt from all income tax and social security taxes are heavily subsidized. Many illegal workers claim they have income tax witheld not bothering to mention it is nearly always negligibly small.[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] The state's tax systems vary more but nearly always tax the higher income people much more than the lower income people. In today's society, unlike the societies of 100 years ago when immigration previously peaked, you will never get net gains for society by importing a bunch of subsidized high school drop outs into it. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

Dr. George Borgas of the University of San Diego and National Bureau of Economic Research points out that much of the impact of immigration on wages and unemployment is difficult to determine. The general rule of thumb is that
"If we could observe a number of closed labor markets which immigrants penetrate randomly, we can then relate the change in the wage of skilled and unskilled workers to the proportion of immigrants in the population (after adjusting for the skill composition of both the native population and the immigrant flow). The estimated parameters would summarize the impact on immigrants on native employment opportunities."[http://www.economics.uni-linz.ac.at/kohler/studneu/semtradepol/pdfs/borjas-94.pdf Borgas] The majority of studies on the economic impact of immigration have been built around this rule of thumb. However, illegal immigration opens up labor markets and destroys the premise upon which studies of the economic impact of immigrants are built when attempting to apply them to illegal immigration.

===Economic impact of immigrants==
The following articles did not examine illegal immigration in particular (and run up against the problem pointed out be Dr. Borgas mentioned above).

In an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal (1994), Richard K. Vedder, Professor of Economics at the Ohio University, states that his study found no statistically meaningful relationship between immigration and unemployment and that if such a relationship exists, it appears to work in the opposite direction. <ref>Vedder, Richard K. ''Immigration Doesn’t Displace Natives'', March 28, 1994, [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?ID=269 Available online] "Using several different periods and approaches, we consistently found no statistically meaningful relationship between immigration and unemployment. However, if there is any correlation, it would appear to be negative: Higher immigration is associated with lower unemployment." </ref> He goes on to postulate that immigrants work harder for cheaper wages than citizens Studies by the Urban Institute estimate that two thirds of ilegal immigrants earn less than half the minimum wage {{fact}}. Studies by the Rand Corporation <ref>McCart hy, Kevin F., Vernez, Georges, ''Immigration in a Changing Economy'', Rand Corporation (1997), ISBN 0-8330-2496-5</ref>

An article by Leon F. Bouvier from the "Center for Immigration Studies", cites studies by two authoritative US agencies, the [[Council of Economic Advisors]] and the [[Department of Labor]] that supports the assertion that immigration does not cause job displacement. <ref> Bouvier, Leon F. , ''Immigration and Looser Labor Markets: Unemployment Outlook in Major Immigrant-Receiving Areas'', December 1990. [http://www.cis.org/articles/1990/dec90.html Available online] "The idea that immigration does not cause job displacement has been aggressively argued by many economists during the 19805, and supported by two authoritative U.S. agencies, the Council of Economic Advisors and the Department of labor."</ref>.

==2004 illegal immigration debate==
{{main|United States immigration debate}}
In 2004, [[United States]] [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] proposed a [[guest worker]] program to absorb migrant laborers who would otherwise come to the U.S. as [[illegal alien]]s. However, the details were left to legislators. In 2005, the [[United States Congress|Congress]] began creating legislation to change the current [[illegal immigration]] policies. The legislation approved by the U.S. [[House of Representatives]] led to massive protests.

See also [[2006 United States immigration reform protests]].

==Legal issues==

===Legal and political status===

===Citizenship and the children of immigrants===
Before passage of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], in 1865 after the conclusion of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], the United States commonly granted citizenship on the basis of [[jus soli]]. The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to protect newly emancipated [[freedmen|former slaves]], and in keeping with the jus soli tradition of the Republic has been interpreted by the [[United States Supreme Court]], in precedent set by ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'' in 1898, to cover everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents, with the exception of the children of diplomats. The decision in ''Wong Kim Ark'' upheld the ''jus soli'' which had often been practiced before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In short, the Court found that the 14th Amendment re-affirmed ''jus soli''. ''Wong Kim Ark'' did not overturn or weaken ''Elk v. Wilkins''; it simply defined ''jus soli''. The Court found that Wong Kim Ark, having been born to Chinese citizens, who were lawfully residing within the United States, and with the intention of amicably obeying its laws, was a citizen of the United States. Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly not''' citizens:
* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Children born to [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the [[Indian Citizenship Act of 1924]])
The following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly''' citizens:
* Children born to US citizens
* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people, and obeying its laws.

Under these rulings, the citizenship status of the U.S.-born children of [[illegal immigrant]]s is in the same gray area as people born in foreign countries of foreign parents - that is, neither ruling explicitly denies or grants them citizenship. Various aspects of both ''Elk v. Wilkins'' and ''Wong Kim Ark'' lend reasoning that such children are not US citizens. ''Wong Kim Ark'' is often cited as granting the children of illegal aliens US citizenship, but the ruling is explicit in that it applies to the children of aliens who are legally within the United States. Some may even argue that it implicitly denies them citizenship by doing so. However, in terms of Supreme Court rulings, or the rulings of any court, implicit is meaningless. The ''status quo'' is that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens, and it will remain that way until government policy changes or is challenged, and the Supreme Court inevitably makes an explicit ruling.

Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a [[constitutional amendment]]. The proposed changes are usually one of the following:
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or [[permanent resident]] (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States (requires an Act of Congress, probably challenged to the Supreme Court).

Representative [[Nathan Deal]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] of [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], introduced legislation in [[2005]] to assert that U.S.-born children are only "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (and therefore eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment) if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Similarly, Representative [[Ron Paul]] of [[Texas]] has introduced a constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Neither of these measures has come to a vote. Even if Rep. Deal's legislation were passed by Congress, it would likely be struck down by the courts based on the precedent established in ''U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark'', which allows for the US born children of lawful visitors to be citizens as well. The issue remains controversial, reflecting both tensions about immigration and disputes about the appropriate balance of power between the courts and the Congress.

Children of families where at least one parent is an illegal immigrant are sometimes referred to as ''[[Anchor baby|anchor babies]]'' because once the illegal family's mother gives birth to the baby inside the U.S., the baby is said to "anchor" them to the U.S.. Legally the illegal parent or parents can still be deported so the anchor is more perceived than real. However, some illegal immigrant advocates and some of the children with parents of mixed legal immigration status feel the term "Anchor Baby" is [[pejorative]]. Some prefer the term "Permanently Residing Under Color Of Law," or "PRUCOL." PRUCOL is a broadly-defined status which covers a variety of situations, including, but not limited to, those persons who are appealing for an adjustment of status as refugee, or persons who are awaiting hearings to decide status and final legal disposition of their case. There are an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 children per year born to parents of mixed legal immigration status.{{fact}}

===Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986===
The [[Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]] (IRCA) made the hiring of an individual without documents an offense for the first time. Enforcement has been lax, but major businesses have often been found to use illegal immigrants. The act is somewhat redundant since the forging of government documents (fake immigration documents or providing falsified social security numbers) is already a felony, and for most companies such documents must be provided to the government in its tax filings. However, the government does not notify those whose identities have been stolen for the falsified social security numbers, thus making it difficult to estimate the extent of the problem. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/]

===Legal cases===
Some major companies have been accused of hiring undocumented workers.

* [[Tyson Foods]] was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its [[chicken]] packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee acquitted the company after evidence was presented that [[Tyson Foods]] went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.
* [[Wal-Mart]] was convicted of using illegal sub contracted [[janitor|janitorial]] workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge or permission.
* [[Philippe Kahn]], who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company [[Borland International]] without ever getting [[United States Permanent Resident Card|proper legal status]].

===Use of military to defend border===
See [[United States immigration debate]]

===Immigration with and without quotas===
The immigration quota system was first expanded with the [[Emergency Quota Act]] of 1921 which was used to reduce the influx of East and Southern European immigrants who were coming to the country in large numbers from the turn of the century. This immigration was further reduced by the [[Immigration Act of 1924]] which was structured to maintain the cultural and ethnic traditions of the United States.

There has never been a quota for Jews or any other religious group, only for people from specific countries. The waiting list for the few available immigration spots grew enormously in the 1930s in the U.S. and throughout the free world that was accepting any immigration. In the 1930's the number of Jewish immigrant applicants seeking visa to the U.S. alone exceeded the quota for all of Germany. [[Adolf Hitler]] started his [[Holocast]] program in the 1930's that ultimately led to the death of over 10,000,000 people including 6,000,000 Jews. The [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] administration had nearly shut down immigration during the decade of the [[Great Depression of 1929]]. In 1929 there were 279,678 immigrants recorded and in 1933 there were only 23,068 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. By 1939 recorded immigrants had crept back up to 82,998 but then the advent of World War II drove it back down to 23,725 in 1943 increasing slowly to 38,119 by 1945 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. After 1946 about 600,000 of Europe's Displaced Person (DP's) refugees were admitted under special laws outside the country quotas, and in the 1960s and 1970s large numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/] were admitted under special laws outside all quotas. Congress passed the [[Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965]] which esssentially removed all nation-specific quotas, while retaining an overall quota, and included immigrants from Mexico and the Western Hemisphere for the first time with their own quotas. It also put a large part of immigration, so-called family reunification, outside the quota system. This dramatically changed the number, type and composition of the new arrivals from mostly European, to predominantly poor [[Latino]] and [[Asian]]. It also dramatically increased the number of illegal immigrants as many poorer people now had family or friends in the U.S. that attracted them there. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] In 1986, the [[Immigration Reform and Control Act]] (IRCA) was passed, creating amnesty for about 3,000,000 illegal immigrants already in the United States. Critics believe IRCA just intensified the illegal immigration flow as those granted amnesty illegally brought more of their friends and family into the U.S.. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

Without quotas on large segments of the immigration flow, legal immigration to the U.S. surged and soon became largely family based "Chain immigration" where familys brought in a never ending chain of off quota new immigrant family members. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States are now at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000. Net Illegal immigration has also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970's, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980's to over 500,000 per year in the 1990's to over 700,000 per year in the 2000's. Total illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf], [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html])

See also:[[Immigration to the United States]]

===Other===
There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics.
* During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents.
* [[Linda Chavez]], [[Zoe Baird]] and [[Tom Tancredo]] are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "[[Nannygate]]". In Tancredo's case, a home contractor allegedly hired illegal aliens.

==Historical context==
Every wave of immigration into the United States has faced fear and hostility, especially during times of economic hardship, political turmoil, or war: in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, one of our nation's first immigration laws, to keep out all people of Chinese origin; during the "Red Scare" of the 1920s, thousands of foreign-born people suspected of political radicalism were arrested and brutalized; many were deported without a hearing; and in 1942, 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned in camps until the end of World War II.
===Chinese experience===
In 1882 the [[Chinese Exclusion Act (United States)|Chinese Exclusion Act]] had cut off nearly all [[China|Chinese]] immigration. The first laws creating a [[quota]] for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers. Ngai (2003) shows that the new laws were the beginning of mass illegal immigration, because they created a new class of persons - illegal aliens - whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility. This contradiction challenged received notions of sovereignty and democracy in several ways. First, the increase in the number of illegal entries created a new emphasis on control of the nation's borders - especially the long Canadian border. Second, the application of the deportation laws gave rise to an oppositional political and legal discourse, which imagined "deserving" and "undeserving" illegal immigrants and, therefore, just and unjust deportations. These categories were constructed out of modern ideas about crime, sexual morality, the family, and race. In the 1930s federal deportation policy became the object of legal reform to allow for administrative discretion in deportation cases. Just as restriction and deportation "made" illegal aliens, administrative discretion "unmade" illegal aliens. Administrative law reform became an unlikely site where problems of national belonging and inclusion played out.

===History of border security===
For a period of time in the 1990s U.S. Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal aliens and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR infrared devices, and helicopters. In conjunction with the U.S. Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. Sher Zieve claims this was very effective but temporary as the illegal traffic resumed as soon as the military withdrew.[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]. After the [[September 11, 2001 attack]]s the United States looked at the feasibility of placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure. [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4018573.html]], [http://newsfromtheborder.blogspot.com/2006/07/del-rio-border-influx-drops.html], [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/national-guard-presence-cutting-number.php]

In December, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to build a [[separation barrier]] along parts of the border not already protected by a separation barriers. A later vote in the [[United States Senate]] on [[May 17]], [[2006]] included a plan to blockade 860 miles of the border with vehicle barriers and triple-layer fencing along with granting amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and roughly doubling legal immigration. [[Bay Buchanan]], head of [[Team America]], an [[immigration reduction]] [[political action committee]], estimated that it would take less than six months to build a 2,000 mile, triple-layer fence and would cost roughly $1.5 - 3 billion. On the same show, Buchanan claimed that the 1990s-era border security program [[Operation Gatekeeper]] cut down unauthorized immigration by 90%. The actual numbers are not quite that high with 565,581 apprehensions in San Diego district in fiscal year 1992 before Operation Gatekeeper and its enhanced border fencing and policing to a low of 100,681 apprehensions in in 2002--an 82% reduction. Apprehensions in 2006 are at 138,608 or a 75% reduction. [http://www.ccis-ucsd.org/news/SDUT-4-16-06.pdf]
Apprehensions have gone up in other areas as border security was enhanced in San Diego and El Paso which saw a similar drop in apprehensions.

==References==
<references />

==Further reading==
* Barkan, Elliott R. "Return of the Nativists? California Public Opinion and Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s." ''Social Science History'' 2003 27(2): 229-283. in Project Muse
* Borjas, G.J. "The economics of immigration," ''Journal of Economic Literature'', v 32 (1994), pp. 1667-717
* Cull, Nicholas J. and Carrasco, Davíd, ed. ''Alambrista and the US-Mexico Border: Film, Music, and Stories of Undocumented Immigrants'' U. of New Mexico Press, 2004. 225 pp.
* Thomas J. Espenshade; "Unauthorized Immigration to the United States" ''Annual Review of Sociology''. Volume: 21. 1995. pp 195+.
* Flores, William V. "New Citizens, New Rights: Undocumented Immigrants and Latino Cultural Citizenship" ''Latin American Perspectives'' 2003 30(2): 87-100
* Lisa Magaña, ''Straddling the Border: Immigration Policy and the INS'' (2003
* Mohl, Raymond A. "Latinization in the Heart of Dixie: Hispanics in Late-twentieth-century Alabama" ''Alabama Review'' 2002 55(4): 243-274. Issn: 0002-4341
* Ngai, Mae M. ''Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America'' (2004),
* Ngai, Mae M. "The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921-1965" ''Law and History Review'' 2003 21(1): 69-107. Issn: 0738-2480 Fulltext in History Cooperative

== See also ==
* [[Immigration reduction]]
* [[United States immigration debate]]
* [[Free immigration]]
* [[History of US immigration]]
* [[Immigrant deaths along the United States Border]]
* [[Migra]]
* [[Nativism]]
* [[NumbersUSA]]
* [[H-1B visa]]
* [[Mara Salvatrucha]]
* [[Minuteman Project]]
* [[S. 2611]]

== Footnotes ==
{{fnb|1}}The [[Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS) defines unauthorized immigrants as “foreign-born persons who entered without inspection or who violated the terms of a temporary admission and who have not acquired Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status or gained temporary protection against removal by applying for an immigration benefit. For example, the following foreign-born persons are not considered to be unauthorized residents in these estimates: refugees, asylees, and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and aliens who are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings. [[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf]]

{{fnb|2}}The [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] and the [[U.S. Border Patrol]] use ''illegal alien'' as their preferred term.
When the term ''undocumented worker'' is used, it generally encompasses all people who enter without documents, including children, the elderly, and those who do not work. The term ''illegal immigrant'' is the preferred language of the [[AP Stylebook]].

==External links==
===News Coverage===
* [[Orange County Register]]: “ 'Visa overstayers' fuel illegal population” - April 5, 2006 [http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1087193.php]
* [[USA Today]]: Text of President Bush's Immigration Law Reform Speech on May 16, 2006 [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-15-bush-speech-text_x.htm?csp=34]
* [[CNN]]: Reaction to Bush immigration speech - May 15, 2006 [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration.reax/index.html]
* [[Miami Herald]]: “No human being is `illegal” – May 24, 2006 [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14652801.htm]
* [[Washington Post]]: “One Sheriff sees immigration answer as simple – May 20, 2006 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]
* [[Associated Press]]: “Ariz. Posse to Arrest Illegal Immigrants” –May 4, 2006 [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html]
* [[NY Times]] “Arizona County Uses New Law to Look for Illegal Immigrants” –May 9, 2006 [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]
* [[City Journal]] “How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy” –no date [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] A publication of [[The Manhattan Institute]]

===Others===
*Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS22026.pdf] a report of the [[Congressional Research Service]] (January 13, 2005) provided by the [[Federation of American Scientists]].

[[Category:Immigration law]]
[[Category:Immigration to the United States]]
[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Legal categories of people]]

[[es:Inmigración ilegal]]

2006-08-06T14:25:13Z

71.74.209.82: content discussing economic costs moved to section on economics

{{mergeto|United States immigration debate}}

{{Cleanup-references}}
'''Illegal immigration to the United States''' refers to the migration of people across the [[border|national borders]] of the [[United States]] that is in violation of U.S. [[Immigration law|immigration]] and [[United States nationality law|nationality law]]. The terms ''illegal alien, illegal immigrant, undocumented alien, undocumented immigrant'', and ''undocumented worker'', are common terms used to refer to persons residing in the United States without either U.S. [[citizenship]] or a valid immigration status. {{fn|1}}.
In the United States the term ‘’undocumented alien’’ typically refers to a foreign national who entered the country without valid travel documents or that overstayed the limited period of time granted upon entry. For example, a tourist who enters with a valid [B1 visa] and is granted a stay of 15 days and remains in-country for 30 days is an ‘’undocumented alien’’. The holder of a valid B1 (tourist) visa is barred from accepting employment. By accepting employment this hypothetical tourist becomes an ‘’undocumented worker’’ (whether he is an ‘’undocumented alien’’ or not). Not all ‘’undocumented aliens’’ are ‘’undocumented workers’’. For example, the visas overstay tourist who doesn’t work or the illegal crossing stay-at-home wife.
{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrants Info||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Education Profile||Number||Percent||
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Less then 12 yr.||align="right"|6,700,000||67.0%||
|-
!align="right"|High School||align="right"|3,000,000||30.0%||
|-
!align="right"|College Graduate||align="right"|300,000||3.0%||
|-
| colspan=3|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Total Illegal Pop.||align="right"|12,000,000 ||Jan 2006||
|-
!align="right"|Total Working||align="right"|7,500,000
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Caught|| align="right"|202,842||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Criminals Deported|| align="right"|88,895||2004||
|-
!align="right"|Caught and Released|| align="right"|1,010,000+||2005||
|-
!align="right"|Illegal Immigrants/year|| align="right"|1,500,000+||Total||
|-
!align="right"|Voluntary returns/year||align="right"| - 200,000+||2005
|-
!align="right"|Change of Status/year||align="right"| - 600,000+||2005
|-
|colspan=3|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Net Increase/year||align="right"| 700,000+||Illegal Immigrants||
|-
|colspan=3 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] A Description of the Immigrant Population [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2] 
|}

==Methods used to enter the U.S. illegally==
===Overview===
According to the 1997 report issued by the Binational Study on Migration and commissioned by the U.S. and Mexican governments,
* One-third or 2.3 to 2.4 million of the Mexican-born US residents are unauthorized, despite the legalization of two million unauthorized Mexicans in 1987-88, and subsequent legal immigration that unified their families.
*The total number of people from all countries who entered illegally or overstayed their visas in 1996 was estimated by the INS to be 275,000
*US sources suggest that the number of Mexican-born persons increased by two million between 1990 and 1996, and the binational study estimated that legal immigrants were the smallest part of the increase, 510,000, followed by unauthorized, 630,000, and then 760,000 SAWs and their family members. <ref>Migration News Vol. 13 No. 3, December 2006 [http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=1329_0_5_0 Migration News website] Retrieved Aug 2006</ref>

Three years later, in 2000, [[United States presidential election, 2000|US Presidential]] candidate [[Patrick Buchanan]] ([[Reform Party of the United States of America|Reform Party]]) asserted during and interview on [[National Public Radio]] that half a million people a year (a little less than double the figure the Binational Study stated)
are entering the USA illegally.<ref>Patrick Buchanan, National Public Radio interview, "Talk of the Nation", May 30, 2000). "Our levels of immigration now in the last 30 years have been enormous. It’s almost over a million legal immigrants a year, and half a million illegals who come here and stay." </ref>

According to the [[Pew Hispanic Center]] the number of migrants coming to the United States each year, legally and illegally, grew very rapidly starting in the mid-1990s, hit a peak at the end of the decade, and then declined substantially after 2001. By 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000. <ref>Rise, Peak and Decline: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992 – 2004, Pew Hispanic Center [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53 Available online]</ref>

Another report of the Pew Hispanic center, cites that 45% of unauthorized migrants, had initially visas for limited amounts of time, bur over-stayed their visas, and that a small percentage of these entered the country from Mexico by means of a [[Border Crossing Card]]. <ref>Pew Hispanic Center, ''Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population '' (May 2006) [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]"As much as 45% of the total unauthorized migrant population entered the country with visas that allowed them to reside in the U.S. for a limited amount of time. Known as "overstayers", these migrants became part of the unauthorized population when they remained in the country after their visas had expired. Another small share of the unauthorized migrant population entered the country legally from Mexico using a Border Crossing Card, a document that allows short visits limited to the border region, and then violated the terms of admission. The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."</ref>

====Illegal border crossing====
{{sectNPOV}}
That same article goes on to state, "The rest of the unauthorized migrant population, somewhat more than half, entred the country illegally. Some evaded customs and immigration inspectors at ports of entry by hiding in vehicles such as cargo trucks. Others tracked through the Arizona desert, waded across the Rio Grande or otherwise eluded the U.S. Border patrol which has jurisdiction over all the land areas away from the ports of entry on the borders with Mexico and Canada."
[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf Available online (PDF)]
meaning that they crossed a border without passing possible criminal or health inspection or having a valid passport and [[Visa (document)|visa]] inspected by an immigration officer at a Port of Entry (POE). It is estimated that over a million people cross the border illegally each year, most of whom are of Mexican origin{fact}. The rest are labeled "Other Than Mexicans" (OTM), of whom a majority are [[Central America]]ns{fact}.

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a [[misdemeanor]] for the first offense and a [[felony]] for subsequent violations{{fact}}. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the future{{fact}}. Immigrants who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. [[H.R. 4437]] would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

According to a report by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary on 1997, "Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling."<ref>[ http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM ORDER SECURITY AND DETERRING ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1997, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the Judiciary</ref>
Another large scale multi-million dollar criminal operations connected to illegal immigration is identity theft. [http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html]
The higher crime rates associated with all this traffic has led to extensive efforts on the part of individual sheriffs and communities trying to prevent further damage to their property and communities. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html], [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html], [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss], [[http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]

In 2006 the number of apprehensions on the border is almost the same as last year through 16 July 2006 at 936,000 [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/tijuana/20060722-9999-1n22crossers.html ]. However, according to many US Border Patrol agents, they were instructed by their leadership to "keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited" as one US Border Patrol agent put it [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050513-122032-5055r.htm].
Some of the traffic has spread away from the dangerous Tucson districts deserts where over a hundred illegal immigrants have died so far this year compared to 153 in 2005. [http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060722/images/border.pdf]

[[Image:ElPaso-Juarez-EO.JPG|thumb|right|200px|El Paso (top) and Ciudad Juárez (bottom) seen from earth orbit; the Rio Grande is the thin line separating the two cities through the middle of the photograph.]]
[[Image:TJ Border Beach.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Beach at Border Field State Park near [[San Ysidro, California]]. (Tire tracks from Border Patrol jeeps are visible on the beach.)]]

Border Patrol activity is concentrated around big border cities such as [[San Diego, California|San Diego]] and [[El Paso, Texas|El Paso]] which already have [[separation barriers]] and extensive Border Agent coverage. Each state in the United States has a [[United States National Guard|National Guard]] organization that could, in principal, be placed on the border at a state governor's discretion to assist with border security; many states also have a backup to the National Gurard called the [[State Defense Force]] that could, in an emergency, also be activated for this purpose. Arizona and New Mexico have currently declared the counties that border [[Mexico]] to be under serious duress caused by uncontrolled illegal immigrant traffic, thereby enabling governors to deploy National Guardsmen to the international border. Arizona has exercised this option but New Mexico has not.

In an article published by Renew America, a website which defines itself as a "Alan Keyes' website for grassroots activism -- designed to foster a nationwide movement to restore America to its founding ideals", former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard asserts that "The whole U.S.-Mexico border could be sealed with as few as 100 helicopters equipped with FLIR (forward looking infrared) scopes, and a few hundred men equipped with state of the art sensors, scopes and other electronics..." [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]

See also [[United States–Mexico border]], [[United States-Canada border]].

=====From countries with no visa agreements=====
Immigrants from nations that do not have automatic visa agreements, or who would not otherwise qualify for a visa, sometimes cross the borders illegally. Individuals from [[North Korea]], [[Libya]], [[Cuba]], [[Syria]], [[Sudan]], and [[Iran]] are required to submit to strict questioning from U.S. officials before their applications are processed. Their applications take longer to process than those for visitors and immigrants from other countries. [http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1300.html]

Often, these individuals enter from a land border using falsified documentation from a third country. For instance, [[Ahmed Ressam]], a member of [[Al Qaeda]], originally from [[Algeria]], entered [[Canada]] with a falsified [[France|French]] passport. Once in Canada, he procured a false Canadian passport to enter the United States. In the case of Cuba, the U.S. offers political asylum to many Cubans, but they first must reach U.S. soil. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//shows/trail/etc/fake.html]

====Visa or Border Crossing Card overstayers====

A visa overstayer is someone who has entered the United States legally and then illegally overstayed his or her visa or violated the restrictions on Border Crossing Card (BCC) or laser visa. Fraudulent and forged visa and BCC passes are included in this category. An estimated average 40-60% of all illegal immigrants to the U.S. entered this way. The number of overstayers varies considerably from country to country depending on the location of the country, the cultural, political, social and economic conditions in a given country in a given time. The PEW Hispanic institute reported [http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf] that the INS had developed statistics that showed 3.2% of all Central and South America visas are overstayed. A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study gives estimates for all countries showing that China, India, Korea, and the Philippines had violation rates as high as 8%.[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] In general the poorer the country they came from the more likely the foreign visitor was to violate their visa.

GAO estimated that 40-60% of all Mexican illegal immigrants got here by violating their border crossing document's conditions. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] In operation Tarmac where ICE and DHS checked airport employees for legal employment they found 27% of the over 4900 violators found were visa or BCC violators. In one of the rare ICE check ups on a grocery chain they found that over 57% of the several hundred violators were visa overstayers or BCC violators ([http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf| Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered Defense]) patrol officials believe Visa violator numbers would increase if it became more difficult to illegally sneak across the border as illegal border crossers switched techniques. About 33% of all Central American illegal immigrants came by overstaying their visa with the rest traveling through Mexico to reach the border and then crossing illegally. At lest 95+% of all illegal South American, European, and Asians got here by overstaying their visa. (The other ~5% represent illegal immigrants smuggled by ship or plane) An increasing number of illegal immigrants are now flying to Mexico or Canada and then crossing the border illegally by foot or car. The ICE agents on the border report a 52% increase in border violators caught that are Other Than Mexican (OTM). The two main sources of illegal visa violators are Mexico and Canada which the U.S. has a large amount of cross border traffic with. Other estimates done by the GAO show that the overstayers and BCC violators from Mexico alone in the year 2001 may exceed 2,000,000 /year. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04170t.pdf] The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/border_crossing_entry_data/us_mexico/index.html] reported that in 2003 (the last year of available statistics) there were 79,000,000 and 245,000,000 border crossings between Canada and Mexico respectively and the US. The tourist bureau shows that there were less Mexicans (as reported by their government) doing all this traffic than their were Canadians (as reported by their government).[http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2004-201-001/index.html] Mexico has roughly three times the population of Canada. The latest ICE statistics show that they captured 30,000 Brazilians after they crossed the U.S. Mexican border illegally for the first time in 2004. Two of the terrorists behind the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] were visa overstayers. The federal government historically has not extensibly checked up on visa holders once they are in the country; but visa checks has been used extensively after 9 September 2001 to check up on illegal immigrants from countries with large populations sympathic to terrorists. Several hundred visa violators were deported and several thousand more left voluntarily rather than face deportation hearings. {{fact}}

To help improve the lack of good information on visa overstayers the new US-VISIT program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States as well as requiring electronic readable passports containing this information. Information collected is checked against lookout databases to ensure that known or suspected terrorists, criminals, and previous U.S. immigration law violators are not admitted. [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_05-11_Feb05.pdf] and then checked against their eventual departure. US-VISIT entry procedures have been operational in the secondary inspection areas of the 50 busiest land border ports of entry since December 29, 2004, and are also in place at 115 airports and 15 seaports.[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4858] Early in 2007 the DHS is hoping to replace the laser visa or boundary crossing cards with People Access Security Service (PASS) card, as a secure identity document for people traveling to or from Canada or Mexico. [http://www.thebta.org/syndicate/news/archives/cat_us-visit.html] These would include Radio Frequency Identification Data (RFID) for ease of transit and security.

Visa overstayers violators tend to be somewhat more educated and be better off financially than those who walked crossed the border illegally. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0205/p01s03-usju.html] The financial and education status of the thousands of BCC or laser visa violators is unknown; but is probably very similar to the illegal border crossers who walked across since they both come from the same population base.

One common means of visa overstaying is coming to the U.S. on a student visa and not going to school or not leaving the country after finishing school. [http://ktla.trb.com/la-me-visa22may22,0,2677069.story?coll=ktla-home-3] The number of foreign students in the United States is over 600,000.

==Profile summaries of illegal immigrants==
<center>
{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"
!align=“center”! colspan=8 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Profile Summaries of Illegal Immigrants January 2006
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
||Job Category||% of Illegal Immigrant||% of Native -1 w/8+ yr sch.||% of Average Native||# Illegal Immigrant||# Native 8+ yr sch.||# Average Native
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Managerial / Self Employed||1.50%||5.9%||32.2%||108,000||758,000||33,810,000
|-
!align=“right”|Retail / Business||4.90%||15.2%||29.2%||352,800||1,952,700||30,660,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Private||1.20%||1.0%||0.3%||86,400||128,500||315,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farm Mgr||1.60%||1.6%||1.1%||115,200||205,600||1,155,000
|-
!align=“right”|Service Retail||18.20%||20.3%||10.3%||1,310,400||2,607,900||10,815,000
|-
!align=“right”|Farming -2||17.50%||2.9%||1.0%||1,260,000||372,600||1,050,000
|-
!align=“right”|Production||22.0%||20.1%||11.9%||1,584,000||2,582,200||12,495,000
|-
!align=“right”|Construction||33.0%||33.1%||14.0%||2,376,000||4,252,400||14,700,000
|-
|||||||||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Total # Working||7,500,000||12,847,000||108,000,000||||||
|-
!align="right"|Labor rate of Participation -3||82%||46.3%||66.30%||||||
|-
!align="right"|Unemployment Rate||7.0%||7.0%||4.10%||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Country Profile||||||Sex / age Profile||||||Worker profile||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align="right"|Mexican|| 6,840,000 ||57%||men 18-39||5,300,000||43.7%||align="right"|4,500,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Latin & Central Amer.|| align="right"|3,000,000 ||25%||women 18-39||align="right"|3,500,000 ||29.1%|| align="right"|2,000,000 ||60%
|-
!align="right"|Asia|| 1,080,000 ||9%||more than 40|| 1,300,000 ||10.7%||align="right"|1,000,000 ||80%
|-
!align="right"|Europe + Canada|| 720,000 ||6%||less than 18||align="right"|2,040,000 ||17.0%||align="right"|200,000 ||10%
|-
!align="right"|Rest of World|| 480,000 ||4%||Born / yr.||align="right"|300,000||||||
|-
|colspan=8|<hr>
|-
!align=“right”|Totals Jan 2006||12,100,000 ||||Total Pop.||12,400,000||Total Working||7,500,000
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / year||align="right"|700,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||See Note 7
|-
!align=“right|Net Rate of Increase / Month||align="right"|60,000+||Illegal ||Immigrants||
|-
|}
</center>

# Native Population that most closely matches Illegal immigrant population is workers that never graduated from high school.
# Farm work is the only job category that illegal immigrants uniquely fill; but it does have a 30,000 H2-A visa program for it!
# Rate of Participation is fraction of total population seeking work
# Average Education of illegal immigrants may be less if the ~30% Central American's are included.
# How many criminals turn around after deportation and return is unknown; but it is significant that ICE catchs more than they deport.
# Estimated number may be low by several hundred thousand
# Other estimates of net increase are over 850,000 illegal immigrants / year.

Information Sources:

*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf] Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population
*[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6019&sequence=0#box2]A Description of the Immigrant Population
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm] Labor Participation less than High School
* [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1204.html] Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't
*[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/AnnualReportEnforcement2004.pdf] Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2004
*[http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/16.pdf] The Labor Force Status of Short-Term Unauthorized Workers
*[http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf] Labor Statistics

==Illegal immigration economics==
The economics of illegal immigration are a highly contentious issue with much conflicting information presented. In 1990 the Congress appointed a bipartisan [[Commission on Immigration Reform]] to review the nation's policies and laws and to recommend changes. Information about the commission and its reports are available at http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/. In turn, the commission in 1995 asked the National Research Council of the National Science Foundation to convene a panel of experts to assess the demographic, economic, and fiscal consequences of immigration. The panel was asked to lay a scientific

{| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Education, Income and Taxes||
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||Asia||Latin America||Other||U.S. / CA
|-
| colspan=6|<hr>||
|-
!align =“right”|Years of Education *||14.2||14.7||9.2||12+||14.4
|-
!align =“right”|Household Income *||$42k||$57k||$32k||$42k||42k
|-
!align =“right”|Effective Federal tax rate **||18.7%||22%||5%||18.7%||18.7%
|-
!align =“right”|Effective State tax rate ***||10%||12%||9%||10%||10.9%
|-
!align =“right”|Average Federal taxes ||$7.9k||$12.5k||$1.6k||$7.9k||$7.9k
|-
!align =“right”|Average State taxes||$4.2k||$6.8k||$2.9||$4.2k||$4.5k
|-
|colspan=6|<hr>

|-
|colspan=6 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' * Census data [http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/effect2004/effect2004.html] **Average federal tax data from CBO estimates of effective Federal tax rates [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] ***State taxes are from California Statistical Abstract [http://www.dof.ca.gov/html/fs_data/STAT-ABS/toc.htm] Note: Most of the Federal and state taxes are paid by households earning significantly more than average.

|}

foundation for policymaking on some specific Immigration issues. [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/1.html]
The panel consisted of over 15 well respected professors from highly ranked universities [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The National Science Foundation panels charge was to address three key questions:
# What is the effect of immigration on the future size and composition of the U.S. population?
# What is the influence of immigration on the overall economy?
# What is the fiscal impact of immigration on federal, state, and local governments?
The report by 15+ researchers was issued after 3 years study was called “The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration” (1997) Edited by James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, ISBN 0-309-06356-6. The book is available on line at [http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/R3.html]. The enclosed table summarizes some of the National Academy of Sciences main conclusions.

Previous studies (and many subsequent} of the fiscal impacts of immigration were found to have serious deficiencies. Indeed in 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available. Many of these represented not science but advocacy from both sides of the immigration debate. These studies often offered an incomplete accounting of either the full list of taxpayer costs and benefits by ignoring some programs and taxes while including others. More important, the conceptual foundation of this research was rarely explicitly stated, offering opportunities to tilt the research toward the desired result. [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/2.html]

'''"As long as there is a virtually unlimited supply of potential immigrants, the nation must make choices on how many to admit and who they should be."''' National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1997.

{| class="toccolours" align="center" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; font-size: 95%;"||
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| National Science Foundation Immigrant Economics Federal State Local Net Annual Fiscal Impact per Household [1997]||
|-
| colspan=12|<hr>||
|-
!align="right"|Source of Immigrant||Europe/ Canada||%||Asia||%||Latin America||%||Other||%||All||% ||Total Cost *
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>
|--
!align =“right”|California||$1,631||26%||$1,081||25%|| ($7,206)||43%||$3,313||6%||($2.206)||100%|| ($20.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449||26%||$2,022||25%|| ($5,625)||43%||$3,052||6%|| ($1,613)||100%|| ($15.0) billion 
|-
! colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="center"| Illegal Immigrant Economics **
|-
!align =“right”|California||$1,631 ||6%||$1,081 ||9%|| ($7,206)||81%||$3,313 ||4%|| ($5,509)||100%|| ($22.0) billion 
|-
!align="right"|New Jersey||align="right"|$449 ||6%||$2,022 ||9%|| ($5,625)||81%||$3,052 ||4%|| ($4,225)||100%|| ($17.0) billion 
|-
|colspan=12|<hr>

|-
|colspan=12 bgcolor="#ccccff" align="left"| '''Source:''' ''The New Americans'', National Science Foundation Table 6.4, pg 284[http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309063566/html/284.html] * Total costs calculated for all U.S. immigrants, legal and illegal, 9.166 million households 1995 ** No adjustments for changes since 1995, assumes 4 million illegal households, percent distribution from Pew 
|}

One study put the cost to the federal government at $2,700/household [http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html] On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal government are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Still another study put the net costs to California residents at $433/household for European/Canadian immigrants, $1,240/household for Asian immigrants and $8,182/household for Latin American workers [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309059984/html/161.html TABLE 4-7a Net Fiscal Impacts by Nativity of Householder] pg 160-1. These are the costs calculated for all immigrants legal and illegal. The costs for illegal immigrants are significantly higher since they have even less education, earn even less income and often avoid paying even the small taxes they are elgible for.

Madeleine Cosman contends that the requirement of hospitals to offer service to illegal aliens regardless of the alien's ability to pay has led to many hospitals running a deficit and being forced to close.[http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf] Also, free public education is extended to all children in the U.S. regardless of their citizen status. The matricula consular and passports are usually considered legal identification by many police agencies and governments.

The results are not surprising given that nearly all modern developed societies like Sweden, Canada and the United States heavily subsidize the cost of all government services for low income people by heavily taxing the higher income people. In the United states the effective federal tax rate considering all federal taxes as calculated by the Congressional Budget office runs from 4.8% for the bottom quintile [0-20%](avg. income = $34k) to 25% for the last quintile [80-100%] of income households. The bottom two income quintiles, with exemptions, are nearly exempt from all income tax and social security taxes are heavily subsidized. Many illegal workers claim they have income tax witheld not bothering to mention it is nearly always negligibly small.[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1#table2] The state's tax systems vary more but nearly always tax the higher income people much more than the lower income people. In today's society, unlike the societies of 100 years ago when immigration previously peaked, you will never get net gains for society by importing a bunch of subsidized high school drop outs into it. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

==2004 illegal immigration debate==
{{main|United States immigration debate}}
In 2004, [[United States]] [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] proposed a [[guest worker]] program to absorb migrant laborers who would otherwise come to the U.S. as [[illegal alien]]s. However, the details were left to legislators. In 2005, the [[United States Congress|Congress]] began creating legislation to change the current [[illegal immigration]] policies. The legislation approved by the U.S. [[House of Representatives]] led to massive protests.

See also [[2006 United States immigration reform protests]].

==Legal issues==

===Legal and political status===

===Citizenship and the children of immigrants===
Before passage of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], in 1865 after the conclusion of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], the United States commonly granted citizenship on the basis of [[jus soli]]. The Fourteenth Amendment was originally passed to protect newly emancipated [[freedmen|former slaves]], and in keeping with the jus soli tradition of the Republic has been interpreted by the [[United States Supreme Court]], in precedent set by ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'' in 1898, to cover everyone born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents, with the exception of the children of diplomats. The decision in ''Wong Kim Ark'' upheld the ''jus soli'' which had often been practiced before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In short, the Court found that the 14th Amendment re-affirmed ''jus soli''. ''Wong Kim Ark'' did not overturn or weaken ''Elk v. Wilkins''; it simply defined ''jus soli''. The Court found that Wong Kim Ark, having been born to Chinese citizens, who were lawfully residing within the United States, and with the intention of amicably obeying its laws, was a citizen of the United States. Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly not''' citizens:
* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Children born to [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the [[Indian Citizenship Act of 1924]])
The following persons born in the United States are '''explicitly''' citizens:
* Children born to US citizens
* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people, and obeying its laws.

Under these rulings, the citizenship status of the U.S.-born children of [[illegal immigrant]]s is in the same gray area as people born in foreign countries of foreign parents - that is, neither ruling explicitly denies or grants them citizenship. Various aspects of both ''Elk v. Wilkins'' and ''Wong Kim Ark'' lend reasoning that such children are not US citizens. ''Wong Kim Ark'' is often cited as granting the children of illegal aliens US citizenship, but the ruling is explicit in that it applies to the children of aliens who are legally within the United States. Some may even argue that it implicitly denies them citizenship by doing so. However, in terms of Supreme Court rulings, or the rulings of any court, implicit is meaningless. The ''status quo'' is that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens, and it will remain that way until government policy changes or is challenged, and the Supreme Court inevitably makes an explicit ruling.

Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a [[constitutional amendment]]. The proposed changes are usually one of the following:
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or [[permanent resident]] (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States (requires an Act of Congress, probably challenged to the Supreme Court).

Representative [[Nathan Deal]], [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] of [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], introduced legislation in [[2005]] to assert that U.S.-born children are only "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (and therefore eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment) if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Similarly, Representative [[Ron Paul]] of [[Texas]] has introduced a constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr698:]. Neither of these measures has come to a vote. Even if Rep. Deal's legislation were passed by Congress, it would likely be struck down by the courts based on the precedent established in ''U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark'', which allows for the US born children of lawful visitors to be citizens as well. The issue remains controversial, reflecting both tensions about immigration and disputes about the appropriate balance of power between the courts and the Congress.

Children of families where at least one parent is an illegal immigrant are sometimes referred to as ''[[Anchor baby|anchor babies]]'' because once the illegal family's mother gives birth to the baby inside the U.S., the baby is said to "anchor" them to the U.S.. Legally the illegal parent or parents can still be deported so the anchor is more perceived than real. However, some illegal immigrant advocates and some of the children with parents of mixed legal immigration status feel the term "Anchor Baby" is [[pejorative]]. Some prefer the term "Permanently Residing Under Color Of Law," or "PRUCOL." PRUCOL is a broadly-defined status which covers a variety of situations, including, but not limited to, those persons who are appealing for an adjustment of status as refugee, or persons who are awaiting hearings to decide status and final legal disposition of their case. There are an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 children per year born to parents of mixed legal immigration status.{{fact}}

===Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986===
The [[Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]] (IRCA) made the hiring of an individual without documents an offense for the first time. Enforcement has been lax, but major businesses have often been found to use illegal immigrants. The act is somewhat redundant since the forging of government documents (fake immigration documents or providing falsified social security numbers) is already a felony, and for most companies such documents must be provided to the government in its tax filings. However, the government does not notify those whose identities have been stolen for the falsified social security numbers, thus making it difficult to estimate the extent of the problem. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/]

===Legal cases===
Some major companies have been accused of hiring undocumented workers.

* [[Tyson Foods]] was accused of actively importing illegal labor for its [[chicken]] packing plants, but a jury in Chattanooga, Tennessee acquitted the company after evidence was presented that [[Tyson Foods]] went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.
* [[Wal-Mart]] was convicted of using illegal sub contracted [[janitor|janitorial]] workers, though it claimed they were hired by a subcontractor without company knowledge or permission.
* [[Philippe Kahn]], who wanted to stay in the United States, created the successful computer software company [[Borland International]] without ever getting [[United States Permanent Resident Card|proper legal status]].

===Use of military to defend border===
See [[United States immigration debate]]

===Immigration with and without quotas===
The immigration quota system was first expanded with the [[Emergency Quota Act]] of 1921 which was used to reduce the influx of East and Southern European immigrants who were coming to the country in large numbers from the turn of the century. This immigration was further reduced by the [[Immigration Act of 1924]] which was structured to maintain the cultural and ethnic traditions of the United States.

There has never been a quota for Jews or any other religious group, only for people from specific countries. The waiting list for the few available immigration spots grew enormously in the 1930s in the U.S. and throughout the free world that was accepting any immigration. In the 1930's the number of Jewish immigrant applicants seeking visa to the U.S. alone exceeded the quota for all of Germany. [[Adolf Hitler]] started his [[Holocast]] program in the 1930's that ultimately led to the death of over 10,000,000 people including 6,000,000 Jews. The [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] administration had nearly shut down immigration during the decade of the [[Great Depression of 1929]]. In 1929 there were 279,678 immigrants recorded and in 1933 there were only 23,068 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. By 1939 recorded immigrants had crept back up to 82,998 but then the advent of World War II drove it back down to 23,725 in 1943 increasing slowly to 38,119 by 1945 [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/]. After 1946 about 600,000 of Europe's Displaced Person (DP's) refugees were admitted under special laws outside the country quotas, and in the 1960s and 1970s large numbers of Cuban and Vietnamese refugees [http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/] were admitted under special laws outside all quotas. Congress passed the [[Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965]] which esssentially removed all nation-specific quotas, while retaining an overall quota, and included immigrants from Mexico and the Western Hemisphere for the first time with their own quotas. It also put a large part of immigration, so-called family reunification, outside the quota system. This dramatically changed the number, type and composition of the new arrivals from mostly European, to predominantly poor [[Latino]] and [[Asian]]. It also dramatically increased the number of illegal immigrants as many poorer people now had family or friends in the U.S. that attracted them there. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] In 1986, the [[Immigration Reform and Control Act]] (IRCA) was passed, creating amnesty for about 3,000,000 illegal immigrants already in the United States. Critics believe IRCA just intensified the illegal immigration flow as those granted amnesty illegally brought more of their friends and family into the U.S.. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html]

Without quotas on large segments of the immigration flow, legal immigration to the U.S. surged and soon became largely family based "Chain immigration" where familys brought in a never ending chain of off quota new immigrant family members. The number of legal immigrants rose from about 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. In 2006 legal immigrants to the United States now number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States are now at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000. Net Illegal immigration has also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970's, to 300,000+ per year in the 1980's to over 500,000 per year in the 1990's to over 700,000 per year in the 2000's. Total illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year [in 2006] with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here. (Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf], [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html])

See also:[[Immigration to the United States]]

===Other===
There have been occasional incidents where immigration status has been an issue in politics.
* During his 2003 campaign for California governor, it was alleged that [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] had violated his visa by working without a permit in the 1970s; he vehemently denied the charge and produced his documents.
* [[Linda Chavez]], [[Zoe Baird]] and [[Tom Tancredo]] are among those accused of hiring illegal aliens, the resulting scandals sometimes being dubbed "[[Nannygate]]". In Tancredo's case, a home contractor allegedly hired illegal aliens.

==Historical context==
Every wave of immigration into the United States has faced fear and hostility, especially during times of economic hardship, political turmoil, or war: in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, one of our nation's first immigration laws, to keep out all people of Chinese origin; during the "Red Scare" of the 1920s, thousands of foreign-born people suspected of political radicalism were arrested and brutalized; many were deported without a hearing; and in 1942, 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned in camps until the end of World War II.
===Chinese experience===
In 1882 the [[Chinese Exclusion Act (United States)|Chinese Exclusion Act]] had cut off nearly all [[China|Chinese]] immigration. The first laws creating a [[quota]] for immigrants were passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb large numbers of unskilled workers, despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers. Ngai (2003) shows that the new laws were the beginning of mass illegal immigration, because they created a new class of persons - illegal aliens - whose inclusion in the nation was at once a social reality and a legal impossibility. This contradiction challenged received notions of sovereignty and democracy in several ways. First, the increase in the number of illegal entries created a new emphasis on control of the nation's borders - especially the long Canadian border. Second, the application of the deportation laws gave rise to an oppositional political and legal discourse, which imagined "deserving" and "undeserving" illegal immigrants and, therefore, just and unjust deportations. These categories were constructed out of modern ideas about crime, sexual morality, the family, and race. In the 1930s federal deportation policy became the object of legal reform to allow for administrative discretion in deportation cases. Just as restriction and deportation "made" illegal aliens, administrative discretion "unmade" illegal aliens. Administrative law reform became an unlikely site where problems of national belonging and inclusion played out.

===History of border security===
For a period of time in the 1990s U.S. Army personnel were stationed along the U.S.-Mexico border to help stem the flow of illegal aliens and drug smugglers. These military units brought their specialized equipment such as FLIR infrared devices, and helicopters. In conjunction with the U.S. Border Patrol, they would deploy along the border and, for a brief time, there would be no traffic across that border which was actively watched by "coyotes" paid to assist border crossers. The smugglers and the alien traffickers ceased operations over the one hundred mile sections of the border sealed at a time. Sher Zieve claims this was very effective but temporary as the illegal traffic resumed as soon as the military withdrew.[http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060713]. After the [[September 11, 2001 attack]]s the United States looked at the feasibility of placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure. [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4018573.html]], [http://newsfromtheborder.blogspot.com/2006/07/del-rio-border-influx-drops.html], [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/06/national-guard-presence-cutting-number.php]

In December, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to build a [[separation barrier]] along parts of the border not already protected by a separation barriers. A later vote in the [[United States Senate]] on [[May 17]], [[2006]] included a plan to blockade 860 miles of the border with vehicle barriers and triple-layer fencing along with granting amnesty to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and roughly doubling legal immigration. [[Bay Buchanan]], head of [[Team America]], an [[immigration reduction]] [[political action committee]], estimated that it would take less than six months to build a 2,000 mile, triple-layer fence and would cost roughly $1.5 - 3 billion. On the same show, Buchanan claimed that the 1990s-era border security program [[Operation Gatekeeper]] cut down unauthorized immigration by 90%.

==References==
* Barkan, Elliott R. "Return of the Nativists? California Public Opinion and Immigration in the 1980s and 1990s." ''Social Science History'' 2003 27(2): 229-283. in Project Muse
* Borjas, G.J. "The economics of immigration," ''Journal of Economic Literature'', v 32 (1994), pp. 1667-717
* Cull, Nicholas J. and Carrasco, Davíd, ed. ''Alambrista and the US-Mexico Border: Film, Music, and Stories of Undocumented Immigrants'' U. of New Mexico Press, 2004. 225 pp.
* Thomas J. Espenshade; "Unauthorized Immigration to the United States" ''Annual Review of Sociology''. Volume: 21. 1995. pp 195+.
* Flores, William V. "New Citizens, New Rights: Undocumented Immigrants and Latino Cultural Citizenship" ''Latin American Perspectives'' 2003 30(2): 87-100
* Lisa Magaña, ''Straddling the Border: Immigration Policy and the INS'' (2003
* Mohl, Raymond A. "Latinization in the Heart of Dixie: Hispanics in Late-twentieth-century Alabama" ''Alabama Review'' 2002 55(4): 243-274. Issn: 0002-4341
* Ngai, Mae M. ''Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America'' (2004),
* Ngai, Mae M. "The Strange Career of the Illegal Alien: Immigration Restriction and Deportation Policy in the United States, 1921-1965" ''Law and History Review'' 2003 21(1): 69-107. Issn: 0738-2480 Fulltext in History Cooperative

== See also ==
* [[Immigration reduction]]
* [[United States immigration debate]]
* [[Free immigration]]
* [[History of US immigration]]
* [[Immigrant deaths along the United States Border]]
* [[Migra]]
* [[Nativism]]
* [[NumbersUSA]]
* [[H-1B visa]]
* [[Mara Salvatrucha]]
* [[Minuteman Project]]
* [[S. 2611]]

== Footnotes ==
{{fnb|1}}The [[Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services]] (USCIS) defines unauthorized immigrants as “foreign-born persons who entered without inspection or who violated the terms of a temporary admission and who have not acquired Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) status or gained temporary protection against removal by applying for an immigration benefit. For example, the following foreign-born persons are not considered to be unauthorized residents in these estimates: refugees, asylees, and parolees who have work authorization but have not adjusted to LPR status; and aliens who are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions or court rulings. [[http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf]]

{{fnb|2}}The [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] and the [[U.S. Border Patrol]] use ''illegal alien'' as their preferred term.
When the term ''undocumented worker'' is used, it generally encompasses all people who enter without documents, including children, the elderly, and those who do not work. The term ''illegal immigrant'' is the preferred language of the [[AP Stylebook]].

==External links==
===News Coverage===
* [[Orange County Register]]: “ 'Visa overstayers' fuel illegal population” - April 5, 2006 [http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/article_1087193.php]
* [[USA Today]]: Text of President Bush's Immigration Law Reform Speech on May 16, 2006 [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-15-bush-speech-text_x.htm?csp=34]
* [[CNN]]: Reaction to Bush immigration speech - May 15, 2006 [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/15/immigration.reax/index.html]
* [[Miami Herald]]: “No human being is `illegal” – May 24, 2006 [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14652801.htm]
* [[Washington Post]]: “One Sheriff sees immigration answer as simple – May 20, 2006 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901856.html]
* [[Associated Press]]: “Ariz. Posse to Arrest Illegal Immigrants” –May 4, 2006 [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/04/D8HD8A9O0.html]
* [[NY Times]] “Arizona County Uses New Law to Look for Illegal Immigrants” –May 9, 2006 [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/us/10smuggle.html?ex=1304913600&en=d28539b33576bf6b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]
* [[City Journal]] “How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy” –no date [http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_immigrants_economy.html] A publication of [[The Manhattan Institute]]

===Others===
*Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS22026.pdf] a report of the [[Congressional Research Service]] (January 13, 2005) provided by the [[Federation of American Scientists]].

[[Category:Immigration law]]
[[Category:Immigration to the United States]]
[[Category:Crimes]]
[[Category:Legal categories of people]]

[[es:Inmigración ilegal]]