Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals/Archive 1

Conflation of terms legal & illegal

The article addresses a memorandum which grants protected status to illegal-immigrant children because legal immigrant children do not need such a policy due to their adherence to immigration law.

As a result, I have clarified the status of the individuals addressed instead of allowing vagueness and conflation to obscure the article's topic. SumaiyaJ (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of Trail of Dreams 2010 into this talk page's article was:

Consensus Reached–Awaiting Merge.

— — — — —

Request received to merge Trail of Dreams 2010 with/into Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals; November 2015 tagged. Discuss here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Strong Merge

Merge Trail of Dreams 2010 with/into Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, as it was a supportive campaign/activity by four people in support of DACA and serves to help identify the continued efforts to pass DACA, which activists hope will lead to permanent residency and eventually citizenship. TalkAbout (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If there is such a strong connection, then why is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals not even mentioned in the Trail of Dreams 2010 article? Indeed, how can a walk in the year 2010 have been in support of a memorandum authored by the Obama administration on June 15, 2012? – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

STRONG Merge or Delete!

The activities were directed towards the goal of Deferred Action by Homeland Security/ICE so that children brought here as children would receive protection which eventually led to DACA (which was worked on by many organization). If this one activity by four people was that significant there would be a Trail of Dreams 2010 ACT, which there is not. Also, the article denotes the Trail of Tears as 'another journey' which it was not, it was forced relocation/genocide 'causing the expulsion or death of a substantial part of the Native Americans then living in the southeastern United States.' PEACE OUT TalkAbout (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@TalkAbout: I don't understand why you want to merge this article, which appears to be about a walk to support the passing of the DREAM Act, into something that seems a bit unrelated—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals—rather than into the DREAM Act article. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge into Dream Act or Deletion. I am fine with merger into the Dream Act under activities by Famous Dream Act Activists -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Act#Famous_DREAM_Act_Activists The legislation that passed was DACA (White House way to offer relief), the legislation for the Dream Act may continue to gain some traction/support by House Speaker John Boehner in recent days and ultimately see passage:" A Republican version of the Dream Act has the support of House Speaker John Boehner, who said Wednesday the bill is "about basic fairness" for children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents, The Hill reported."'Trail of Dreams 2010' is a campaign within a movement and only by four people, that in many places list themselves as 'famous'. There is already a place here: Famous DREAM Act Activists via article on Dream Act.

TalkAbout (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wbm1058 Thanks for pointing out the Dream Act as being more relevant, stand corrected, especially as it is a bill that is still in process and not dead. Peace Out TalkAbout (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I tagged the articles. But if you want to propose deletion, see WP:AFD. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wbm1058 Thank you, Merge seems the most sensible way, under the Dream Act with its own heading or into another appropriate one. Peace Out

TalkAbout (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

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.

GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 01:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

• Note: it seems like the consensus is that a merge between Trail of Dreams 2010 and DREAM Act makes more sense -- which I agree with -- so I'm going to remove the merge tag from this page. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Additions

Hello! I just wanted to add some information to this article such as renewal stats, advance parole information and possibly rearrange some of the format. Pedrogaytan12 (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"Policy"

As a reader, I'm confused about the status of this policy. If I understand the article correctly, then President Obama ordered "deferred action," which is sort of a euphemism for "a stay on deportations." Ok. Some people liked the policy, others didn't.

Fast forward. There was an inauguration and Trump became President. Again, some people like him and others don't. Regardless, is it sane to assume that a *policy* from the previous administration is still in effect following the transition of power? The article seems to allude to an expectation that President Obama's policies became President Trump's. Based on the few indicators we have, that's not the case.

65.154.106.61 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the following content was from Secure Communities and administrative immigration policies as off-topic. Please review it for merging into the present article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

On June 15, 2012, the Obama administration announced a policy of partial relief for a specified category of young immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.

The qualifications have been designed to resemble those of the DREAM Act, a law proposed to provide a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants, which has been repeatedly rejected by Congress. Persons affected by the new policy, upon applying, will be protected from deportation for a two-year period, with possible extensions, and will be eligible for work permits. To qualify, an applicant must, among other requirements:

• have arrived in the United States before turning 16;
• have lived in the country for at least 5 years;
• be no more than 30 years old; and
• have completed a high school education or GED.

The new policy is imposed by executive order and therefore stops well short of what the DREAM Act would provide. No US citizenship, permanent residency or amnesty are offered and individual outcomes will be discretionary (on case by case basis). Up to 1.7 million people are estimated to be eligible.

The administration's decision reflects its growing awareness of the crucial importance of Latino voters in the upcoming presidential election. President Obama, who supports the passage of the DREAM Act by Congress, has not made it one of his legislative priorities, in part because pushing through the legislation has not been seen as a realistic goal. While some immigrants may be reluctant to bring themselves to the attention of government authorities without assurance of obtaining benefits, the Department of Homeland Security announced its intention to focus deportation efforts on individuals who pose a considerable public safety risk, which has been the Department's official policy a number of months.

This last objective has not been met, according to the critics of the administration's immigration policy, who say that many non-criminal persons who would be eligible for relief under the DREAM Act if it were passed have been continuously deported since John Morton's announcement of the policy change. The present executive order was demanded by Latino illegal immigrants and their supporters, who staged petitions, demonstrations and sit-ins.

The implementation of the new program officially began on August 15, 2012. Applications were being accepted upon a payment of a $465 fee; according to White House officials, expenses will be paid from fees, with no cost to the taxpayer. The administrative job of processing applications was entrusted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, to avoid involvement of enforcement agencies, which could discourage some wary potential applicants. The information gathered from applicants is promised not to be shared with enforcement agencies.

The initiative was expected to help the Obama administration with winning back Latino voters, many angered by the deportation of illegal immigrants. The Migration Policy Institute estimated about 1.2 million potential applicants to be immediately eligible, with further 500,000 reaching the eligibility age of 15 within the next few years.

If an applicant fulfills the requirements and is approved, he or she will be able to apply for a work permit, social security card, driver's license and college financial aid, among other government benefits funded by US taxpayers.

Because of the temporary nature of the benefits, the perceived risks (including revealing family members, such as parents, who may be undocumented) and other uncertainties, changing politics among them, many may choose not to apply, and the degree of eventual success and magnitude of the program are not being estimated yet.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

Please change the term "illegal alien(s)" to "undocumented immigrant(s)" or at the very least change "illegal alien(s)" to "undocumented alien(s)" throughout the article.

A person is not (and can never be) illegal, the act of coming to the United States without proper paperwork is an illegal act. To use the comparison some users have stated in the revision history - a person who shoplifts is not an illegal shopper. They are a shopper who has committed an illegal act. Therefore, someone who comes to the United States is not an illegal alien. They are an immigrant who has committed an illegal act. It is important to use people first language. Thank you. PDeckard (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Maryland

The section about Maryland has inaccuracies. I request to change it to the following.

Baltimore's mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, has stated that Baltimore's city police will not check the citizenship status of people with whom they interact.

Maryland residents are eligible for in-state public tuition rates regardless of immigration status if they attended Maryland high schools for at least three of the previous twelve years; graduated from a Maryland high school or received a Maryland GED within the previous ten years; registered at a Maryland public college within four years of high school graduation or receiving a Maryland GED; registered for Selective Service, if male; and filed Maryland income tax returns.

~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Quackslikeaduck: That second paragraph loses its clarity towards the end. Would it be more succinct if you made several shorter sentences? Thanks. Samsara 00:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara: How is this?

Maryland residents are eligible for in-state public tuition rates regardless of immigration status under certain conditions. A Maryland resident is eligible if they attended Maryland high schools for at least three of the previous twelve years and they graduated from a Maryland high school or received a Maryland GED within the previous ten years. They must have registered at a Maryland public college within four years of high school graduation or receiving a Maryland GED. They must have registered for Selective Service if male, and they must have filed Maryland income tax returns.

~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added and credited to you. I made a small amendment to reflect the fact that, as the original text stated, Rawlings-Blake is not currently the mayor. Samsara 12:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Today's development

We're learning now that the Trump admin. is reportedly set to strike down some or all of DACA. It seems that we're going to want to update the article in some respect before Sept. 3? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Request to reduce to semi-protected

I agree. I have asked the administrator who protected the article to reduce it to semi-protection. --Chris Howard (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chris Howard: I do not find your characterisation of the edit warring to be accurate. You can get consensus and then make one or several edit requests, as required, for changes needed to this article. Samsara 23:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara: I stated that the edit warring was performed only by IP's or very recent "new users". Indeed the article has been edited, since its protection expiry on 17 Aug 2017, by IP's and by new User:Ajpd090, and – apart from an initial adding of two "see also" links – confirmed editors did nothing other than revert (most or all of) the IP changes. Therefore, there is no edit war among confirmed editors. Semi-protection should thus suffice. --Chris Howard (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Chris Howard: The edit war goes all the way back to July and also involves three autoconfirmed users. Now, do you actually have an edit to make, or are you just arguing for the sake of it? Samsara 11:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No need for WP:PA. I am of the view that @Shawn in Montreal:'s statement needs a follow-up, whoever does the edits. Also the edit war up to July is not the point here, as my request does not put into question the protection of July. My request simply takes note that mere semi-protection would be sufficient now, as mere semi-protection would have been sufficient to avoid the edit war that subsequently ensued since Aug 17. --Chris Howard (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Also fail to see need for full protection. Semi - definitely. Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As expected since you are one of the three parties referred to above. Maybe we can substitute a community revert ban or some similar arrangement. Samsara 12:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we can get an admin who doesn't see it as their mission to enable disruptive IP accounts? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

"As expected since you are one of the three parties referred to above" - ah yes, the three reverts of IP edits I made on different days in July. That's "edit warring". Gimme a break. And you do realize that this is just ONE person, although using different IPs edit warring against several users, right? Or did you not bother to check? Also note what a different admin did in July [1]. That's right, they SEMI protected it, as appropriate, not full protected it, which is just dumb. And of course as soon as the semi- expired, the IP returned to resume their edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because you do not agree with someone, does not make them disruptive. I see no consensus on this page for your position. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

No, what makes them disruptive is that they're edit warring against multiple editors, engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and that they're basically a WP:SPA with only a ew edits while having mysteriously acquired in depth knowledge of Wikipedia policies, procedures and esoteric discussion pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What for? Since the lapse of the semi-protection of July 27 (and indeed in fact since even the beginning of July), there were only the following types of edits, apart from protection settings:

(1.) IP's repeatedly changed "undocumented" to "illegal" without consensus on the discussion page,

(2.) new user User:Ajpd09 performed wording changes without consensus,

(3.) these changes were reverted by a confirmed user, and

(4.) a confirmed user inserted two "see also" links.

The full protection (of Aug 10 and Aug 24) has effectively stopped confirmed users from editing the article without need. There has been no edit war among confirmed users, not even in July. In fact your characterisation "The edit war goes all the way back to July and also involves three autoconfirmed users" is misleading in that the three confirmed users did nothing other than to revert changes by IPs or new users that had no consensus. Thus both decisions of 10 Aug and of 24 Aug to fully protect the article were suboptimal in the sense that the protection was stonger than necessary (full rather than semi), and apparently also shorter than necessary (2 weeks only, but the EW appears to flare up immediately at every lapse). In summary: Please, I request you again @Samsara: to – please – change your protection of Aug 24 to semi-protection. Preferably, with prolonged semi-protection, but that's your judgement. --Chris Howard (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Chris. This is incompetence bordering on abuse of tools, particularly when the admin in questions starts threatening long standing users over nothing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara: Is there even a single disruptive edit of a confirmed user in all of August/July? --Chris Howard (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Protection was for edit warring. Samsara 19:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

"Edit warring" between long standing confirmed users and a bunch of throw away accounts and IP addresses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It's still edit warring. There is no consensus on this page for using "undocumented" 170.178.156.22 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It is edit warring by YOU (and all your IP accounts), against several established editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

And what evidence do you have that all the edits where made by one person? In fact they where not. The only reason to make that false claim is so that you can make the false claim that your veiw is the majority view.

The evidence is called "geolocate". Also, that all the IPs are SPAs which are making the exact same edits. Seriously? You gonna pretend otherwise? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that geolocation provides hits in at least 3 different states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois)for the given IP's, some in very close time proximity, I fail to see how that supports your claim.2600:1007:B005:F867:3D1E:7022:FF4B:88F9 (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and which one are you with this account?  Volunteer Marek  18:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Good deflection. My ISP decided to switch me to an IP V6 address today without notice. Geolocation still shows that your accusation is false. 2600:1007:B00B:EEDE:3D1E:7022:FF4B:88F9 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek the majority consensus on the talk page is for Illegal. The only points given in opposition are, the AP style guide, vague assertions that using the term "illegal alien" is somehow derogatory, and misrepresentations that the word illegal in "illegal alien" somehow refers to the person themselves instead of their status. None of these look like strong enough reasons to use a euphemism contrary to wikipedia policy. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 September 2017

Remove the modifier "illegal" in "illegal students."

While we may never resolve the controversy of what term to use to refer to persons with no lawful status, we can at least agree that they're not illegally studying. Mauricio Maluff Masi (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've implemented that on the principle that removing the bone of contention is a frequently and successfully applied solution in other disputes, such as genre warring and the infobox person religion debate. Samsara 21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 September 2017

Please change all instances of "illegal immigrants" in this article to "undocumented immigrants." Calling people "illegal immigrants" puts emphasis on the citizenship status of a person in a country in very negative terms (i.e. illegal) which gives an automatic negative connotation to that person and their character. This is especially important in this article because people protected under DACA did not have a choice at their time of "illegally" entering the country. Changing "illegal immigrants" to "undocumented immigrants" gives a much more neutral connotation to this group of people, helping to avoid the possible formation of a bias against them, while still describing them accurately. I believe that this neutrality is especially important to preserve in sources such as Wikipedia, which should be an unbiased source of information. Thank you for your consideration! Sassysss (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please note #.22Illegal.22_vs._.22undocumented.22, #illegal_alien_vs_undocumented_immigrant, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#The_use_of_the_term_.22illegal_alien.22, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Full_prot_for_E.2FW_and_discussion_needing_closure_.28and_PS_about_Marek.29 and particularly that this article falls under WP:ARBAPDS. Samsara 21:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

One more time. That discussion only says that the term "illegal alien" is not BANNED on Wikipedia. It doesn't say whether that or "undocumented migrant" should be used. That needs to be decided on case by case basis. And an IP user aside, most editors here have supported using "undocumented migrant" on this article, partly for reasons articulated by Sassyss. So drop it Samsara.

I also feel obligated to point out that 1) if you're going to get involved in discussing the content, then please stop administratin' on this article, per WP:INVOLVED and 2) this comment of yours makes it appear as if you purposefully protected the IP's version of the page simply because that was the one you agreed with (and then extended full protection just to be spiteful). That would fall under abuse of administrative tools.

Oh, and those requests for edits are piling up. Since you thought it was such a great idea to fully protect this page (and then extend it for longer), how about you get on that? Volunteer Marek  03:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but I've changed this to answered until there is evidence for consensus since it seems to be highly contentious (I mean seriously, not counting this, there seem to be at least 3 threads where the issue has came up all with recent discussion, 2 of them with it in the title), and is partly what resulted in the article being protected in the first place. Please remember the edit protected template should only be used for edits which are either clearly uncontentious or which have consensus. Please note that this is not an endorsement of either terminology, but rather reflective of the fact that wikipedia works by consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

U.S. President Donald Trump is expected...

Does Wikipedia include "expected" information, or should we wait until the official announcement? News organizations report "news" based on unnamed sources but should Wikipedia? In many cases, the official news differs from what was reported based on unnamed sources.

user:mnw2000 13:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 September 2017

Can "illegal students" in the second paragraph please be changed to "illegal immigrants"? It's contentious, especially if read as a noun phrase, and it places emphasis on students when DACA applies to students, graduates and veterans. RAN1 (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done, was superceded by another edit request below and does not seem needed now. Samsara 21:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I agree with the OP. The phrase "illegal students" suggests that it is not their residency in the United States that is illegal, but their status as students. It is not illegal for them to attend school in the United States, which is what "illegal students" suggests. The Supreme Court has ruled, as recently as Plyer v. Doe, that education is a right of school age children, even those who are here illegally. (The Plyler decision had to do with the state of Texas charging tuition in their public schools for students who brought to this country illegally by their parents. These were not anchor babies, but children who, while dependent on their parents came to this country with their parents illegally. SCOTUS struck down the tuition laws, and maintained that the right to free education is enjoyed by every child, even those whose very presence in the U.S. is illegal.)

So, simply put, "illegal students" is not a thing. The phrase would more accurately be rendered as "illegal immigrants who are students." It is, perhaps a tad cumbersome. But it is not inaccurate, unlike the phrase, "illegal students." 65.33.138.115 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 September 2017

In the second paragraph the two sentences need to be swapped because the second sentence explains who the subject of the first sentence ("these students") is, the comma in the first sentence needs to be removed, and the timing of the events in the second sentence need to be clarified.

"The policy was created after acknowledgment that these students had been largely raised in the United States, and was seen as a way to remove immigration enforcement attention from "low priority" individuals with good behavior. The illegal immigrant student population was rapidly increasing; approximately 65,000 illegal immigrant students graduate from U.S. high schools on a yearly basis."

should become something like

"The illegal immigrant student population was rapidly increasing; approximately 65,000 illegal immigrant students graduate from U.S. high schools on a yearly basis. The policy was created after acknowledgment that these students had been largely raised in the United States and was seen as a way to remove immigration enforcement attention from "low priority" individuals with good behavior." Rscragun (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Jeff Sessions Announces End To DACA Immigrant Application Policy

Attorney General made the announcement.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Q7RFK96fE

Protected edit request on 5 September 2017

"On June 16, 2017, the United States Department of Homeland Security announced that it would rescind the executive action taken by the Barack Obama administration that expanded the DACA program, though the DACA program's overall existence would continue to be reviewed.[15][16]" 195.77.54.81 (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that this sort of updating to the article is obviously called for. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this article is wildly out of date. President Trump and Attorney General Sessions made announcements today that are fundamental changes to the Executive Order. There is no need to leave out these important developments. The New York Times is reporting today: "President Trump on Tuesday ordered an end to the Obama-era executive action that shields young undocumented immigrants from deportation, calling the program an “amnesty-first approach” and urging Congress to replace it with legislation before it begins phasing out on March 5, 2018." AND the NY Times says this: Trump "dispatched his attorney general to announce that the government will no longer accept new applications from undocumented immigrants to shield them from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA." Michael D. Shear & Julie Hirschfeld Davis. Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act, New York Times, September 5, 2017. Please update the article.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm making a request. The page needs to be updated.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• I put in a request at WP:RPP to decrease the protection level of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile I will edit through the protection to add a brief note about the program being rescinded. I agree thatt needs to be in there. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The full protection is ridiculous

It's shambolic to prevent edits on the page at a time when a record number of readers are reading this page and every major news outlet is focusing on DACA and providing info that would naturally be added to the page. All because some IP numbers tried to change the terminology on the page? Ridiculous. The full protection has done permanent damage to the page, as I and many other editors have been unable to add content to it. I'm not familiar with Wiki norms and policy, but surely the full protection of this page during the most integral week of the page's existence must stand as THE textbook example of how NOT to protect Wikipedia pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

We're working on getting protection lowered. It still needs some protection from IP vandals. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

End of Program

On September 5, 2017, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the end of program's applications for immigrants. The program will be phased out over a six month period. JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC) JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Protected edit request on 5 September 2017

Section needs to be added noting that the program ended.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC) JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done I agree, it needs to be in there. I will add a brief notice. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 September 2017

Please consider changing instances of "illegal immigrants" to "undocumented persons/people" as this is the preferred terminology. 73.79.234.131 (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done There is a discussion on this subject, above; please discuss it there. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

illegal alien vs undocumented immigrant

Living the dream : new immigration policies and the lives of undocumented Latino youth Presidential executive action on immigration : overview and issues -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

please stop changing "illegal alien" to "undocumented immigrant" as illegal alien is the proper and legal term for someone is in the country without permission

Overall good article,but i think it would be good to add the consequences if president Trump would to end DACA under republican response.--Jose2495 (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be speculation and fall under WP:CRYSTAL. As for the term Illegal Alien, it appears that it has legal standing per the Hanen order, as written about in this Heritage Foundation article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether it has legal standing or not. It's more of a WP:MOS issue - which comes down to how reliable sources do it. (I think they're split).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not a question of style. Euphemisms like "undocumented" are contrary to wikipedia policy. Given reliable sources have used both, we should not use a Euphemism. The tern "undocumented" is also highly inaccurate, as many so called "undocumented" actually have lots of documentation. Visa's that they have over stayed, deportation orders, arrest records etc. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not a euphemism. The fact that reliable sources use the term evidences that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

On the topic of what reliable sources are using, there has been a growing trend toward "unauthorized immigrant", which captures the legal point of entering (or staying in) the country without legal authority but avoids the pejorative nature of labeling an individual as illegal. This link (Unauthorized Immigration) is to a Pew Research Center usage but many more RS usages can be easily found. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources routinely use euphemisms like "sleeping with" etc.. The fact that a phrase is used by reliable sources does not prove that it is not a euphemism. 2600:1007:B00B:EEDE:3D1E:7022:FF4B:88F9 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who has no legal permission to stay in a country is staying illegaly. He is acting against the law.

The only way to change that is to change the law so that those persons are by law allowed to stay. Please notice that a law is not an Executive Order, but rather has to be approved by Congress, and/or the states. Legal=Lawful Illegal=Unlawful, from Latin. --Tscherpownik (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Persuasive speakers know well that choice of words drives perception. Calling a vehicular collision a "car accident" instead of a "road incident" or such suggest that nobody is morally responsible, only legally, and so what you did is okay and not really your fault. During Robert Ehrlich's gubernatorial reelection campaign, a PAC lobbying against his reelection produced a scare ad in low tone stating that he tried to "pay a private business" to address Baltimore City's failing school system—suggesting corrupt dealings with for-profit interests—instead of saying that Ehrlic had "attempted to foster a charter school program in Baltimore City to approach its growing public school system difficulties."

Either a racial slur or a clinical term is sufficient to describe a person of any ethnic or genetic descent; the term puts a tone to the statement, and so changes what the listener hears. This is why I often refer to legal immigrants granted citizenship as "Naturalized Americans" instead of just "Immigrants": an "immigrant" isn't a real American, and is just some dirty foreigner who came to steal our jobs; but a "Naturalized American" is an American and deserving of our patriotic respect and solidarity.

In today's political atmosphere, describing people as "illegal immigrants" or "illegal aliens" functions as an ethnic slur, immediately taking the discussion to a negative tone. The discussion on *what* to call them is grown more complex in recent years, however: many are not "undocumented", and as "unauthorized residents" we encounter programs such as DACA providing temporary work-residence permits and thus conveying authorization of a sort *from the Government*. We also don't want to make up new terms here such as "unprocessed immigrant residents", as they've been processed in a sort of way for DACA, but not by the full of immigration requirements.

So now what? Nobody has resorted to calling them WOPs at this point, based on the false etymology, mainly because "illegal immigrant" holds the same dark emotional connotation: we already have our ethnic slur, and we've even shortened it to "illegals" in modern dialect. In general use, many people will automatically assume anyone who speaks poor English and appears Mexican is here illegally, and will refer to them as such. I've been given to endure many tirades about violent crime, bad driving, and identity theft by people citing anyone who looks like they came from south-of-the-border as "illegals" without even checking their papers. Broad brushes and broad strokes.

We don't have a strictly-accurate, strictly-neutral term, either. We have more-neutral, incomplete terms and a brave new world of subtleties. Claiming a term is neutral because it is strictly-accurate is deceptive when culture has built an entire, complex meaning around that term not reflective of its semantics. John Moser (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Illegal Alien or Illegal Immigrant is no racial or ethnic slur since it lacks any description of race or ethnicity. Anyone residing in the U.S. who isn't a U.S. citizen can be an illegal alien due to lack of permission of residence, and as you well know, "American" itself is not a race or ethnicity. In fact, "Alien" is the exact opposite of "American" (anyone who is not an American citizen is an Alien), and any Alien lacking permission to stay, is an Alien who unlawfully (=illegal) stays in the country. So that is simply the proper and most accurate legal term. --Tscherpownik (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Images from today's protest

Not sure they would be appropriate to add (at this point, at least), so won't be adding them myself, but for anyone interested there are some images from today's DACA-related protest at Trump Tower on Commons here: commons:Category:Protest against the DACA rescission in New York (5 September 2017). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. After the protection is lifted we will be able to report the protests, and the images would be helpful then. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I just added the top-level Commons category to the page, though the nesting of that category is a bit strange right now. I should have some San Francisco protest photos up by this afternoon (PDT). Funcrunch (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I added one from New York and one from SF. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

Based on my, and other immigration lawyers', execution of the new policy with clients, I propose the following change for specificity and clarity. The implementation has occurred- it just applies differently to different groups of individuals.

Change: On September 5, 2017, DACA was rescinded by the Trump administration, but implementation was delayed six months to give Congress time to come up with a solution for the population that was previously eligible for DACA.

To: On September 5, 2017, DACA was rescinded by the Trump administration. The DACA program ended immediately for first-time applicants if their application was not received by USCIS by the end of the day. The Trump administration stated implementation was delayed for six months to give Congress time to come up with a solution for the population that was previously eligible for DACA. However, this delay only applies to current DACA recipients whose Employment Authorization Documents ("EAD") expire between September 5, 2017 and March 5, 2018. Options for DACA recipients whose status expires after March 5, 2018 is uncertain, as they were not mentioned in the Executive Order or announcement by Attorney General Sessions.

Citations: Rescission of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children”, United States Department of Homeland Security, September 5, 2017. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/memorandum-rescission-daca

Frequently Asked Questions: Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA), United States Department of Homeland Security, September 5, 2017. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/frequently-asked-questions-rescission-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca Aerojovi (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I think most of them have been implemented by the request immediately below this one. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

Added the year (2017) to deadline for clarity for those seeking information. Change "DACA permits" to "DACA status and Employment Authorization Documents ("EAD")" since DACA is not a permit, but work authorization is. Change "DACA recipients with a permit" to "DACA recipients with a work permit" to clarify. Change "set to expire before March 5, 2018" to "set to expire on or before March 5, 2018" per DHS FAQ released 9/5/2017. Change "if they do so by October 5." To: "if their application is received by USCIS by October 5, 2017." This is an important distinction since renewal applications cannot be postmarked October 5, 2017 and still be accepted. They must be received.

Change: Sessions added that implementation will be suspended for six months, and DACA permits that expire during the next six months will continue to be renewed: DACA recipients with a permit set to expire before March 5, 2018 are to have the opportunity to apply for a two-year renewal if they do so by October 5.

To: Sessions added that implementation will be suspended for six months, and DACA status and Employment Authorization Documents ("EAD") that expire during the next six months will continue to be renewed. DACA recipients with a work permit set to expire on or before March 5, 2018 are to have the opportunity to apply for a two-year renewal if their application is received by USCIS by October 5, 2017. Aerojovi (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestions. They may seem nit-picky, but it's important for our article to be accurate. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

2600:6C54:4E00:117:993D:2463:F467:5823 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Information contained on this page is biased.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK _Discuss 22:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Correction required to misleading information.

The article states (Daniel) "Ramirez Medina's release followed on March 29.[36]"

The Article states Ramirez Medina 'was released' however he was 'released on bond' of $15,000 as cited in the link [36] provided. By not including the condition of his release it suggests an unconditional release.

Capsman99 (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit requests

Edit requests: Add all the studies on DACA from the 'Illegal immigration to the United States' page:

• • A 2016 study found that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) did not significantly impact the number of apprehensions of unaccompanied minors from Central America.
  • A 2016 study found that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) increases labor force participation, decreases the unemployment rate and increases the income for DACA-eligible immigrants. The study estimated that DACA moved 50,000 to 75,000 unauthorized immigrants into employment.
  • Another 2016 study found that DACA-eligible households were 38% less likely than non-eligible unauthorized immigrant households to live in poverty.
  • A 2017 Science study found that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) lead to improved mental health outcomes for the children of DACA-eligible mothers. A 2017 Lancet Public Health study reported found that DACA-eligible individuals had better mental health outcomes as a result of their DACA-eligibility.

Thanks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm going to hold off on that. It's nothing new; there is no such urgency that it needs to be added through full protection. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see a more neutral stance on this article. I believe it is very left wing written with little sources on why it could be harmful to an economy or why republicans feel it is necessary to cut this program. --Amillard (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The Republican perspective about the dangers of DACA is already present in the article. What's not present is some pseudoscience to defend the Republican perspective. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't conflate actual research with analysis done by journalists

This article currently features text of research published in top journals (Science, Lancet, Journal of Public Economics) and journalists describing what existing research says and what experts on the topics are saying. In the lede, one editor added "The impact of DACA was extensively analyzed by scholars, think tanks, and journalists. For instance,..."[2] before a section that explains what the research on the topic is. There are three problems with this:

• 1: The sentence is superfluous. Why do we need a sentence to explain that the topic has been studied when we list studies on the topic immediately afterwards? Who would assume, in the absence of this sentence, that the topic has not been studied?
• 2: It conflates the top academic research on this done by academics with some vague "analysis" by not only academics, but also think-tanks (which are often seen as partisan) and journalists (who are not experts on these topics; it's also unclear if this is reporting by journalists or op-eds by journalists).
• 3: The sentence is also misleading and adds uncertainty as to what precisely the content that follows is (it does more to confuse readers than help them). The "for instance" could mislead readers into thinking this is a random assortment of findings and that there are a bunch of other studies that we are not mentioning (believe me, this is pretty much all the research on DACA). The conflating of academics with think tanks and journalists could cast doubt as to the veracity of the findings and the thoroughness of the research. Is the content a bunch op-eds by random think tank people and journalists or actual studies and RS reporting on the academic literature. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• It's called a topic sentence. It's irrelevant who conducted the analysis. If journalists and think tanks conducted an analysis and we use references to their works in the content then a topic sentence like explains exactly what comes next. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the initial "Research shows..." sentence is much better, and simpler, than the lengthy version, and avoids the problems outlined by Snooganssnoogans. Neutrality^talk 22:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

But that's not a topic sentence. It only describes two findings and the paragraph as a whole talks about several different findings. I think your concern is more about the verb used and the actors. So perhaps, we can change the verb and the actors? Something like, "The impact on DACA has been widely published in several mediums."? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That's even worse and more vague. The original is fine. Neutrality^talk 22:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Nah, the original is pretty bad, because it's not even a topic sentence to begin with. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"why" tags

The middle of encyclopedia article's text is NOT the place to inquire or ask questions that one fancies. As such the "why" tags added to the article recently were spurious. If there is pertinent information out there (as some of the edit summaries asserted) then add that information. Volunteer Marek  09:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek: Not really, that's exactly why the tags exist in the first place. Please see {{why}} and WP:EDIT, a policy. This is not someone "fancying" about something. This is about NPOV and providing accurate information to our readers. Please be careful about what you express regarding other people's actions and remember WP:AGF. Furthermore, please be careful about qualifying something as "spurious" and remain civil; keep those types of descriptors to yourself, they dont belong in Wikipedia. There is a reason why President Obama wanted to expand DACA and there is a reason why several states opposed such expansion. The information is out there and these tags signal our editors to include it. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Putting aside that the tags are sort of silly to begin with, none of the instances where added them "require clarification". This is more like just asking "why?" randomly. Qualifying something as "spurious" is perfectly appropriate in this instance and there's nothing incivil about that. Those "descriptions" are the stated reason for removal of the spurious tags so, no, I'm not gonna "keep it to myself". I also don't appreciate the passive-aggressive and threatening tone you've chosen to adopt.

If you think that there's a reason why something or other, then... why aren't you adding it to the article?  Volunteer Marek  21:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Once again, please be careful on how you describe actions performed by other editors. The tags are not silly because the article does not explain why the different actors took a certain action. It only says that they did. As an encyclopedia we must explain why they took a certain stance. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out to you, WP:EDIT, a policy, states that, "Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary." That's exactly what I did. I ask you once again to remain WP:CIVIL and to exercise care on the way that you describe other editors actions. Calling things silly, spurious, or passive-aggressive is a personal attack and a violation of policy. I implore you to please review WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. The "why" tags are silly in general, no matter how and where they're used. "As an encyclopedia" we must follow reliable sources. We may or may not "explain" depending on the topic and issue. Volunteer Marek  02:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you really should exercise care on how you express yourself. As has already been mentioned to you twice, WP:EDIT, a policy, not only establishes that the use of such tags is permissible but encourages their use. I think that you have an opinion that such tags are 'silly.' But that's your opinion and our policies disagree with it. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What IS a "Why" Tag?

Is this discussion referring to the two puzzle piece w images, next to the comments concerning "missing information about the quantitative and qualitative differences between the states," etc.?

I would not go so far to call the requested additional information "spurious," but the labels used are annoying to readers of the article. It does not seem to me that the requested information is critical enough to warrant such an obtrusive marking. Anyone who wants to expand on or compare & contrast the views and actions of individual states on DACA can do so directly via edits to the page. If this aspect is deemed somehow quite central to the article (contrary to the view I just stated), then why not raise the matter here in the talk page? (Instead of cluttering up the article with such boxes). Then one could explore (in the talk page here) what is meant by "quantitative and qualitative differences" etc. and contributors could thereby work more collaboratively to enhance and expand the article. -Drewkeeling (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Except that WP:NPOV, WP:PILLARS, the Council of Foreign Relations, and several other sources disagree with you. Our job is to present a neutral point of view and both sides of the arguments. Furthermore, as an encyclopedia our job is to present the whole picture. Fortunately, one of the tags has already been expanded. For instance, in adhering to NPOV, did you know that the plaintiffs explicitly mentioned in their lawsuit that the issue was not about immigration but about "the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution"? Yet, this article never explained that, focused solely on the academic research on DACA, all while ignoring the plaintiffs arguments.. even though reliable sources are available for all that. This is why we use tags like those. So that other editors can further expand the article. If you don't like them I believe there is an option in the user preferences to not show them. But WP:EDIT not only permits their use, it also encourages them. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Typo

"On March 7 22-year-old Daniela Vargas of Jackson, Mississippi, another DACA recipient was to detained by ICE"

Please be prompt when you lock people out.

Done and thanks for your report. However if you want people to be prompt, it would help greatly if you're clearer on exactly what change is needed rather than just saying typo and quoting the original sentence. A simple, "please remove 'to' between was and detained" would be about as many words as a request to be prompt. Also if you use the edit request process, people may be more likely to notice you request. Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Misunderstanding concerning EO's

"On June 16, 2017, the United States Department of Homeland Security announced that it intended to repeal the executive order by the Barack Obama administration"

I could not find any executive orders establishing DACA in the Federal Register.

I also feel that administrations are unable to subscribe to orders. I couldn't find the text of the instrument used to establish DACA, so I don't really know who is responsible for establishing it. Normal and official executive orders are subscribed by the President alone.

This should be fixed a bit to clarify that it's not a true EO that has been listed in the register. Perhaps the term "executive action" would be more accurate. That would keep people from searching for an EO that doesn't exist.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.5.35.132 (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you on the general point, unfortunately a lot of sources do refer to Obama's 2012 executive order. The DHS memo for example talks about rescinding the 2012 memo, not an executive order. [3]. Our Deferred Action for Parents of Americans also says that case did not involve an executive order, although it's unsourced. I finally found [4]/[5] from the Congressional Research Service which does specifically note DACA did not involved an executive order per se. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is how the article states that the policy was established. It's very clear from the rose garden speech that this policy was established by the 15jun2012 memo from Napolitano. It's quite difficult to believe that such a speech would qualify as an establishment of a selective enforcement policy. It would be nice to clarify this by presenting the memo earlier, in the "establishment" section, rather than merely placing the memo in the "implementation" section. The cited Politico sources neglect to support the notion that an executive order was to be repealed. The last two FAQ links you posted will work very well in the establishment section, since this is clearly expressed on its face. The FAQ also verifies that this was established by the DHS. Here is the relevant portion:

"How was DACA established?

The DACA initiative was announced by former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano in a June 15, 2012, DHS memorandum entitled, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.” The DACA initiative was not established by executive order."

Thanks for finding the FAQ, that helps tremendously!

Recission of the DACA memo

I thought it would be appropriate to include a source to the press release following the statement, "In 2017 Trump decided to end it."

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/memorandum-rescission-daca HealthUp (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• @HealthUp: two things: (1) that's the actual memorandum, not a press release, and (2) Trump was not the one that decided to rescind DACA, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke rescinded it, not Trump, as shown in the document you linked. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)