Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States

Archives
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. Morlesg 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

login 68.223.158.169

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

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

edits regarding illegal border crossing

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

unverifiable

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

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

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

this article isn't about legal immigration

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

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

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

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

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."198.97.67.56 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

economic impact edits

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

weasel words

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

unsourced

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

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

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

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

weasel words

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

no source

Anon edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content Forking

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renew America

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

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

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

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

Renew America copyright violation

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

Wikipedia:Fair use lists for text:

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

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

Brimba 11:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why we aren't writing our own content

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

It follows that…

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

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

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

The policy in a nut shell is stated as:

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

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

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

Deletion of unsourced content

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

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

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

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

deletion of advocacy

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

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

ACLU position paper

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

Not so (my highlights):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urban Institute study deletion

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

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

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

Psychohistorian 02:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

PRUCOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC Summary

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

Comments by involved editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by editors responding to this RfC

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

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

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

• -

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

Rand Study deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harassment and Request for Mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Border crossing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of military to defend border

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

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

Rand study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illegal border crossing section

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

Borer Patrol abuse

I recommend that "Allegations of Border Patrol abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McCarthy and Vernez

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

Zogby

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

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

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

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

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

Redirection?

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

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

I don't think so..

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

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

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

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

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

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

Border Patrol abuse

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

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

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

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

Format and refs

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

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

Immigration with and without quotas

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

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

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

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

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

Propaganda

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

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