Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Total Fiscal Burden of Illegal Aliens on U.S. Taxpayers: $115,894,597,664

KKK, Mein Kampf, 12 digit accuracy from a highly questionable source. This is going nowhere.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Vgrinberg (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC) [1] FAIR is not at all a reliable source, being highly xenophobic towards immigrants in general, not just illegal ones. Bill Williams 21:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC) So labeling is a method to fight misinformation? It's very easy to label but not that easy to prove. And mediabiasfactcheck.com is a reliable source because you or anyone on Wikipedia trust it? Is there any proof besides mediabiasfactcheck.com opinion that proves that FAIR research that I referenced to actually lies? Is there any prove that any of the other sources in this article are not lying? As far as I understand mediabiasfactcheck.com labels anyone who disagree with the LEFT as FAR RIGHT BIASED. So I think labeling shouldn't be a guideline for determining what should be included in the article and what not unless there is a solid evidence that the data presented is made up. If you personally or anyone else do not have anything specific to object in that study that I referenced to then I think researches of both sides should be included in the article, so that the readers could be equipped better and decide for themselves. Below is another reference to an opinion about mediabiasfactcheck.com. I don't see Wikipedia page about this Just Facts Daily, but this can be fixed. Obviously, you will call them FAR RIGHT BIAS as well and this can go in circles on and on and on until someone gets tired and just gives up on Wikipedia. Regards.Vgrinberg (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC) You can't seriously think we'd use Federation for American Immigration Reform as a reliable source. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Massive tangent on RS, the KKK and Mein Kampf. WP:NOTFORUM applies. And yes Wikipedia follows mainstream sources and scholarship, we do not interpret sources ourselves. If you find any reliable mainstream sources that corroborate the above number, or any reliable sources that dispel the concerns about the unreliability of FAIR, please bring them forward. The side note from your reliable source: "No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. " It can only mean one thing and shouldn't have any exceptions. I once thought of Wikipedia as a serious AND professional organization and didn't understand why my college and university professors prohibited us from citing Wikipedia. I even donated once. Yeah, I expected the rejection but hoped that I could get to someone's fairness. Federation for American Immigration Reform on your Wikipedia page is described as anti-immigration, which is false. And none of the citation on that page proves that they are anti-immigration. I agree that they are anti ILLEGAL immigration yes, but I don't see anything wrong to be against something that is against the law, regardless of how emotional it could be. Even if FAIR is anti immigration in general or are any other word, if they have valid points to discuss the character of the source shouldn't matter. Number 1 US TV network Fox News is citing FAIR. Will you call Fox News unreliable and BIASed as well? Of course you will. So far I don't see anyone from left even trying to get into a discussion about data, arguments and facts. I only see and hear outright name calling and labeling. Maybe, the truth hurts and left just can't live with it? I am myself a former immigrant, UIC graduate, an currently and Engineer. But I entered this county legally, and went though the entire process legally. You can't imagine through what hardship I had to go through to get where I am, that not a single illegal immigrant is going through. I don't see anything wrong to question anything that is going against the law. Did you guys even read the entire article from FAIR to even discuss its BIAS? Sounds like you didn't bother, but labeled it immediately. If you did, please present a single argument that FAIR has made up. If you can't please consider making this information available on this Wikipedia page or you will completely loose another reader who still holds hope that truth will prevail over BIAS of each of us.Vgrinberg (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Even if the report were conidered rs, weight would also apply. The paper has an implicit messaage: illegal immigrants cost the government more than they contribute. But a neutral source would explain the context. First, how large a proportion of the economy is this? Second, it's not surprising that low paid people receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. But their low pay benefits their employers, who do pay taxes, including on their profits. Walmart for example earns $14 billion per year, partly because it has employed illegal immigrants. If you start adding the taxe on incremental profits, the deficit would be wiped out. TFD (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC) You didn't answer if there is any data or argument in this report that is made up and not true regardless of the context. This paper study is quite explicit about the cost burden on the taxpayer. Also, I don't see how this paper intent was to surprise anyone. It's mere goal was to show that cost burden on the taxpayer of the illegal immigration outweighs the benefit to the economy. Employers most of the time are corporations like Walmart, so most of the taxes are passed on to the buyer as a sales tax. Where is your source that shows that Walmart earned $14 billion per year thanks to illegals and wouldn't earn the same if it would employ Americans? Where is your source that shows that Walmart today employs illegals. I know Walmart had litigation about this in the past. I doubt that Walmart would be very open about this today as well. Where is your source about anything else you stated? It is your opinion against my facts now. And again, regardless of your opinion or opinion of a sources that your referring to, show me a single argument in FAIRs study which is not true or not close to true. If the report were considered rs? Considered by who? By "reliable" source? Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia even admits it. What we know about mediabiasfactcheck.com? It has a much tinier Wikipedia page vs FAIR. Again, see reliable source: "No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. " Vgrinberg (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC) My point is that your source is selective in its presentation of information in order to show that illegal immigrants are a net cost to the taxpayer, while another interpretation could be that they are a net benefit. Whether or not illegal immigrants are working for Walmart, they are working somewhere and benefiting employers who are taxpayers. (Corporations btw pay income taxes and shareholders are taxed on dividends and capital gains.) AZCentral has an article that debunks FAIR's claims and logic.[2] The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which tracks hate groups, has an article about FAIR.[3] The best advice is not to read reports from these types of sources, since even when their data is accurately, it is selectively presented in order to support a predetermined agenda. I am familiar btw with rs policy. Certainly no source is entirely non-rs, but doesn't mean for example that we would use a KKK website for an article on U.S. history. It might be rs for its address. TFD (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC) First of all, I would like to thank you for agreeing to participate in an efficient debate. Secondly, selective should mean that my source did not account for something or did not present something. Please point our what exactly did it miss in its calculation and the source please. There is no interpretation to math calculations. It is either right or wrong. Neither FAIR nor Pew Research nor any other source have the exact numbers of illegals in US today, only estimates. We cannot with 100% certainty talk about statistics that are mostly educated guesses. No survey can be trusted since illegals have no incentive to disclose themselves without a good reason, since technically they are out of law and avoid deportation. It should be understood. Since all the discussed reports are estimates it is understood that there might be differences between reports of different sources especially with different opinions on what should be account for. As AZCentral points out correctly FAIR estimate is about 1 million of illegals more then Pew, and FAIR did not object to that but explained that Pew did not count TPS and DACA in. I've heard much worse estimates of how many illegal immigrants are currently in. I am sure you've heard about Ann Culture. But even if you calculate based on 11 million per Pew you still get $101,987,245,944.32 of net burden and much much less in taxes and other that are paid and other contributions to the economy. Yes, FAIR included the US born children of illegals as well, just to fairly show that this adds to the cost of the this violation of immigration law by their parents. Its like a parent robs a bank but his son enjoys the inheritance. FAIR did not include in their calculations much more that would even add more to the cost and that sounds reasonable to me to include, but it is real hard to even estimate that data so they dropped it. FAIR opinion is that proponents of illegal immigration have failed to examine whether the same, or even more significant, benefits would be achieved by filling vacant jobs, at market wages, with American employees. If you have any sources that have a detailed examination of that I would be happy to look at it. All the employees are benefitting their employers some more some less regardless of their status. There is no data that shows that every illegal is working. Not all illegals in the job market from different reasons, such as age for example. If you have some data about it, please share your source. To break AZCentral "debunker" even more down: The Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan and non-advocacy organization possible.The Center for Migration Studies, which advocates for migrants. (Already conflict of interests similar to FAIR) AZCenter further explains that :"That survey does not give an estimate for the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., but instead gives a count of the total foreign-born population in the country. Organizations that make such estimates take that number, compare it to government reports on the number of foreign-born people in the country legally, and the difference is adjusted using the "under-count" rate to estimate the total number of undocumented immigrants. " But, if some illegals for some reason decided to fill the survey they won't be counted in the illegals toll. Also, it doesn't make sense to me at all how the difference between the government reports and the surveys (some of which are governmental as well such as cencus.gov) makes up for the undercounted illegals. AZCenter says:" While the [FAIR] study counts the cost of benefits such as Medicaid and English-language programs used by the citizen children of unauthorized immigrants, they do not include the taxes those citizens pay once they become adults and move out of their parents' household." Correct, but it also doesn't count the cost those citizen children incur after they move out their parent' households. AZCenter says: "A National Academies of Sciences report published in September 2016 found that while immigrants — especially ones with lower education levels like most undocumented immigrants — are probably a net fiscal drain, the children of all immigrants are among the highest economic contributors and taxpayers in the country." Does this report include the children of documented immigrants? Not clear. Conclusion. It is not enough to call the report a debunker. It has to be truthful and objective at the very least as well. Btw, here is an article in USA Today about The Southern Poverty Law Center Vgrinberg (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC). Sounds to me like another hate group with clear BIAS. For the record that link is to an opinion piece by someone who was a senior employee of the homophobic Family Research Council (and then another homophobic hate group). Doug Weller talk 10:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC) What your source calls Homophobic others call "Protecting the family, promoting the dignity of every human life and advocating for religious liberty" , "All human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives" , "Advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview.". I wish I would have access to your source's study about Family Research Council and the other "homophobic" group. Regardless, should her opinion be discredited and not taken seriously because of that even if she is telling the truth? USA Today decided that it is ok to give her a platform to speak up. Maybe we should start looking into USA Today possible homophobic roots? It's amazing how many organizations and effort is dedicated to the witch hunt and exposing the "hate" organizations. I doubt that all of those organizations and their effort lives off donations. This must be heavily financed by someone with a thick wallet. Anyway, thank you for trying. I already gave up.Vgrinberg (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Numerous members of the Democratic party were affiliated with KKK. I think I saw on Wikipedia page as well. Should we discredit the enire party because of that. Many of the prominent illegal immigration supporters did not filter what they were and are saying at times including our incumbent president. Looks like The Southern Poverty Law Centre is dedicated to hunt "hate" groups. All of the reference links on that article you shared point back to the same The Southern Poverty Law Centre. Even if the founder of FAIR said something he is now diseased and should not be of the concern anymore. I don't find anything hateful in the remarks of the other FAIR leaders. Maybe some of their remarks are not politically correct at times, but doesn't sound like there were any violation of freedom of speech, nor anyone would charge them for hate speech. Vgrinberg (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC) @Vgrinberg: the Democratic party did indeed support the KKK shortly after the Civil War, but abandoned it. I'm sure there are still some racists in it, but that's mainly the purview of Republican supporters. Are you really going to use 19th c. arguments? Doug Weller talk 18:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC) I wasn't the first to bring the KKK up. In addition the argument encompasses the 20th century as well. Racism is a purview of Republican supporters? I can say the same about Democratic supporters. Every side has supporters in marginalized groups. It doesn't make the entire base racist. Vgrinberg (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Interesting, is there even such a thing today a KKK website? Even if there was, I don't see anything wrong to cite a source if a point needs to be made. KKK is part of US History, so how is it wrong or irrelevant to use KKK affiliated websites for citations for example to confirm of what was done or said. You guys cite Mein Kampf don't you?Vgrinberg (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC) @Vgrinberg: No, we don't cite Mein Kampf anywhere but the article itself. If you want to cite FAIR on FAIR's article, that's a question to have on that article. I don't know what your wall-o-text about the KKK is going on about, but FAIR is not an appropriate citation on this article. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC) "No, we don't cite Mein Kampf anywhere but the article itself" -this sentence literally says that you do cite it. So in some cases unreliable source becomes reliable? Oh, I I see you changed it to not appropriate. Again, I was not the first to bring KKK up to this discussion. My wall of text was not about KKK, but to argue the validity of points against FAIR. FAIR, is not appropriate because other clearly BIASed hate groups call it out? Did FAIR break any law to be inappropriate? This is a clear censorship my friend. Which proves Wikipedia left strong left leaning BIAS. People see what you guys are doing. Vgrinberg (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Your argument seems to be with policy which tends to favor a "strong left leaning BIAS," i.e., is pro-big business. Wikipedia articles will therefore resemble similar articles in major mainstream media and academic textbooks. If you want to change that, you need to change policy. Alternatively, you can persuade mainstream source to change their views so that views of FAIR etc. can have more weight in articles. TFD (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC) This is becoming WP:POINTY and WP:TENDENTIOUS. If you think we cite Mein Kampf because it's a "reliable sources" and that "other clearly BIASed hate groups call [FAIR] out" then you not competent enough to edit here. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC) No. I think you cite Mein Kampf because you pick and choose which sources to use if it doesn't hurt a brainwashing narrative of your project regardless any policies. You use policies as a shield from others but not really following it yourself. "It does not mean we should label people as incompetent. Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful. Always refer to the contributions and not the contributor, and find ways to phrase things that do not put people on the defensive or attack their character or person." I agree I am not competent enough to lie to people, to accept lies, and to continue rely on Wikipedia as a reference to the truth. Yes, not showing the whole story with all sides opinion is equivalent to a lie. You are following the "mainstream" media and what you call "academic" curricula, which is just agenda for the left and has nothing to do with truthful information and education. You pick and choose which "mainstream" media narrative to use. You are not using Fox News media as guide, right? As I mentioned before, academia mostly prohibit Wikipedia usage for reference in papers. Maybe Mein Kampf is used by the "big business" which you can be proud to be part of as a reference book to mimic? I am sorry for speaking up, but not sorry for speaking the truth that you don't like. Best Regards. Vgrinberg (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC) References

Vgrinberg, the OP, was just trolling - admitted this on his talk page: "I started this ball rolling, to just prove myself that Wikipedia is as brick-walled as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of the Swamp speakers." now blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Terick34.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: PeacefulPassion.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 July 2019 and 15 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eiturio.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blueberry0927.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Terms "illegal" vs "undocumented" vs "unauthorized"

Snooganssnoogans the terms "undocumented" and "unauthorized" are vague and false in many cases, and should only be utilized in direct quotes. An "undocumented student" cannot get financial aid, because financial aid literally documents who they are. An "unauthorized spouse" is not actually unauthorized because their marriage was legally conducted. I could continue further, but the point is that those terms are simply false to describe illegal immigrants and unnecessarily vague in many situations, and should therefore not be used. Bill Williams 21:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"Unauthorized immigrant" and "undocumented immigrant" are far more common terms in the sources that we use in this article and they have the added bonus of not carrying the pejorative baggage of "illegal immigrant". It's kind of obnoxious to shoehorn "illegal immigrant" into sentences where the footnotes and cited scholarship do not use the term. As this is the long-standing language in the article, you should seek consensus before initiating a wholesale change of all the terms to "illegal immigrant". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The only factually accurate term is "illegal immigrant" and that was already used more in the article than each of the other two terms. "Illegal gun owner" is an accurate term to describe someone who illegally owns a firearm, but some of them have a warrant out for their arrest for owning the gun, and therefore calling them an "undocumented gun owner" makes no sense when their gun and them are both documented as being used in crimes. The term "undocumented student" is false if the student is documented, the term "unauthorized spouse" is false if the spouse was authorized to be a spouse, "undocumented worker" is false if they are documented, "temporary undocumented immigrant" is false if they are permanently without proper documentation, "newly undocumented" is false if they never had legal documents to begin with, and so on. Bill Williams 22:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it is "the only factually accurate term," and so do the sources, and have thus reverted to the prior, longstanding version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The "factually accurate" argument is undermined by the fact that "illegal" is typically used for criminal, rather than civil offenses. In the US, most "illegal immigration" is simply a civil violation (visa overstay or otherwise being "out of status") not a criminal one. Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Most new illegal immigrants come across the southern border in criminal violations, and a civil offence is still illegal. It called illegally parking to park in an improper place even though that is only a civil violation. Bill Williams 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This is untrue, or at least misleading; a large portion of unauthorized / undocumented immigrants end up in that situation due to overstaying their visas. This is one of the many reasons why the language used in sources has shifted (which is the real reason we have to reflect that language, of course.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Most new illegal immigrants come across the southern border in criminal violations - assuming this is true (can you share your source please?) newly arrived people are only a very small proportion of the undocumented population. Guettarda (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I know they are only a fraction of total illegal immigrants, but regardless of their method of entering, illegal immigration is a crime. I have already cited below that visa overstay or illegal entry might be a civil vs. criminal violation, but both are considered illegal. And again, "undocumented population" is a nonsensical term; numerous states allow them to obtain a drivers' license, use healthcare or education etc., all of which require some form of documentation. Many have already crossed the Southern border or are simply overstaying their visa, meaning either way they have been detained and documented or were literally given a document called a visa. Nobody uses the term "undocumented firearms owners" to describe people who buy guns without background checks, or people who bought a gun legally but then commit a crime and are no longer allowed to own them. Bill Williams 23:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This argument is an example of the etymological fallacy: it "makes a claim about the present meaning of a word based exclusively on that word's etymology." We are supposed to reflect current usage, not argue against language change. TFD (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The current usage is actually the term "migrant"[4] which is even more vague and inaccurate, but at least that is not as vague as "undocumented". Look at almost any current news article, they all realized long before you that "undocumented" is completely inaccurate, so now they use "migrant" without any connotation of illegality. Bill Williams 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I really do not care about the term "unauthorized" vs "illegal", one is just a euphemism for the other, but the term "undocumented" is no longer as used in the media because of its inaccuracy, since most illegal immigrants are literally documented by the government, they didn't lose their visas or court papers, they just overstayed them or skipped their court appearances etc. Bill Williams 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It took me just a minute to find an old AP memo describing this situation[5]

"Terms like “undocumented” and “unauthorized” can make a person’s illegal presence in the country appear to be a matter of minor paperwork. Many illegal immigrants aren’t “undocumented” at all; they may have a birth certificate and passport from their home country, plus a U.S. driver’s license, Social Security card or school ID. What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States.

Without that right, their presence is illegal. Some say the word is inaccurate, because depending on the situation, they may be violating only civil, not criminal law. But both are laws, and violating any law is an illegal act (we do not say “criminal immigrant”). Finally, there’s the concern that “illegal immigrant” offends a person’s dignity by suggesting his very existence is illegal. We don’t read the term this way. We refer routinely to illegal loggers, illegal miners, illegal vendors and so forth. Our language simply means that a person is logging, mining, selling, etc., in violation of the law — just as illegal immigrants have immigrated in violation of the law."

The next year the AP[6] states that the term "illegal immigrant" should not be used, but neither should "undocumented" because it is completely inaccurate, and this article uses undocumented on numerous occasions. The AP also states that "illegal immigration Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law" meaning that a person who engages in such an action is an "illegal immigrant" even if the AP wants to use euphemisms. The term "migrant" is what is currently used the most by the media, and it is even more vague, so we should be using the most accurate term on the matter. Bill Williams 18:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

We have to use the wording used by the sources, regardless of our feelings about it. And most of them (as you've said) avoid "illegal immigrant" now for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is its inaccuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

so we should be using the most accurate term on the matter The most accurate term is undocumented, but "most accurate" is meaningless - policy says "verifiability, not truth" and for us to decide what's "most accurate" despite what sources say is a violation of WP:NOR. "Illegal immigrant" had the weight of common usage, not accuracy, but that usage is changing. And since policy has us follow current sources, I imagine this article will eventually be renamed. Guettarda (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"Undocumented" has been repeatedly described as completely inaccurate by numerous sources, hence it is no longer used. "Illegal immigrant" is accurate but the media did not like its connotations, so now they use the term "migrant" which is still completely inaccurate. Migrants can come here legally or illegally, so classifying them the same way would make no sense for this article, which is on illegal immigration and therefore people who engage in it are illegal immigrants. That is just basic grammar, while "undocumented immigrant" is false, because most[7] illegal immigrants overstayed a visa, which is literally a type of document, meaning most illegal immigrants are documented. Furthermore, many work jobs with some form of documentation, utilize healthcare [8] or educational services [9] with some kind of documentation, or even obtain a drivers' license etc., all of which show how absurdly inaccurate the term "undocumented immigrant" is. The sources state that even if someone comes to the U.S. legally via a visa, if they overstay that visa, that is illegal and therefore as an immigrant they are now an illegal immigrant. I do find it ironic how these sourced from a few years ago all use the term "undocumented" when describing numerous ways in which illegal immigrants are documented, but that does not mean Wikipedia should use inaccurate terminology as well. I think the AP Stylebook is correct in its description of the term "undocumented" as inaccurate. Bill Williams 23:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] it is pretty clear that the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal immigration" are used far more often than the terms "undocumented", "unauthorized", or "irregular". Although usage for other terms has risen in recent years, all it does is mislead readers by using a term like "undocumented" when they are very much documented in numerous instances. Bill Williams 23:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Google searches show both reliable and unreliable sources. Ngram viewer is preferrable because it tends to show more literaturat usage. As you can see, undocumented immigrants has narrowly passed illegal immigrants.[22] The reason illegal immigrants remains high is that reliable sources cannot avoid using the term when decribing hate groups and political demagogues who make immigration an existential issue for the U.S. TFD (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Note the White House uses the term undocumented rather than illegal, although they also use the term unauthorized.[23] TFD (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't care what the White House says, that is not whatsoever an expert or reliable source on the matter. Multiple reliable sources have described why the term "undocumented" is highly inaccurate, and I have already explained in detail how it is literally false to call illegal immigrants "undocumented" when the majority are documented in multiple ways, including visas and documentation to receive a number of government services. Just because more sources use a false and misleading term does not necessitate that Wikipedia must do so. All it does is confuse readers who do not understand the obsessive need to euphemize by supposed experts, and these readers might think that illegal immigrants somehow do not have documents regarding one thing or another that they actual do have access to. It is not beneficial to readers to use the term "undocumented" vs. "illegal". Every single other illegal industry can describe the people in that industry using basic grammar, so "illegal immigrant" is again a simply grammatical exercise on the term "illegal immigration". Bill Williams 19:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The majority of reliable do not use the term "illegal" any more, because it is derogatory. Our approach should be to reflect current usage. The White House incidentally is the seat of the U.S. government which deals with illegal immigration. Also, per WP:BLPCRIME, Wikipedia articles do not claim people of committed illegal acts unless they have been convicted. As the years go by, language usage changes. Terms that our grandparents used might now be considered offensive. We would be all happier if we just accepted it rather than try to stop the march of time. TFD (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing the term "illegal", but the term "illegal immigrant" is basic grammar relating to the term "illegal immigration", so saying that "Wikipedia do not claim people [have] committed illegal acts" makes zero sense when the article is about the illegal act. This article is not specifying that John or Jimmy commit a crime, but it is obviously discussing the large scale act of illegal immigration, which is a crime engaged in by millions of people. I do not care about the technicality of "illegal immigrant" but it is just basic grammar, while for the vast majority of illegal immigrants, "undocumented" is a false term because U.S. federal or state governments document most illegal immigrants in some way. Bill Williams 02:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

So if we call someone an illegal immigrant we are not saying they immigrated illegally? TFD (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How is the literal description of something like "illegal immigration" with the words "illegal immigrant" derogatory? It just seems like the use of "undocumented" is a euphemism, not that "illegal" is some sort of insult. MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Liberal bias in page?

Hello everyone,

In the page, right from the start (namely read the claims that cite sources 3-16 in the page, you will notice a clear positive, biased tone, promoting even, of illegal immigration) you can see that positives for illegal immigration are listed very early on, with little to no negatives listed. Anyone with 0 knowledge on the subject upon reading this article would probably gain a biased view on it. What do you guys think? 143.208.17.217 (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

1) WP:NPOV does not maintain that articles give equal weight to all viewpoints, merely that it gives due weight to viewpoints based on their prevalence in established scholarship. Expecting perfectly equal treatment at Wikipedia articles where established scholarship does not should not be expected. 2) You have provided no sources for additional data or scholarship that would, as you claim, provide possible negatives to be added to the article. If such scholarship exists, it should be easy to provide it. If it doesn't exist, then from where do we get such information? --Jayron32 15:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Responding to your point 1: I did not expect for equal weight on all viewpoints, I was stating my concern that there was apparently a bias in the wording and constructing of the page. The viewpoints that I mentioned could perfectly be in a separate section, and not shoved immediately when starting the page. WP:IMPARTIAL states that the tone of wikipedia articles should be impartial, and I was highlighting my concerns that I belive that it is not. Responding to 2: The main purpose of my comment is to highlight my concerns, not to provide sources for negatives. Amorgos420 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. The first paragraph of the lead ends, "Illegal immigration has been a matter of intense debate in the United States since the 1980s." The next two paragraphs then rebut the anti-immigrant position without actually explaining what that position is or who holds it.

I would prefer that the second paragraph explain the role that illegal immigration plays in the U.S., which is unique among Western nations. While the U.S. has programs for bringing in temporary workers into their country, unlike most countries it relies primarily on illegal immigration to fill unskilled labor vacancies.

Next we could present the anti-immigration views ("They're stealing are jobs! They go on welfare! They're committing crimes!") and then present expert opinion on these claims.

TFD (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Amorgos420: You say "The main purpose of my comment is to highlight my concerns, not to provide sources for negatives", but my point was that your concerns may not match established scholarship on the topic. Articles on Earth do not, for example, deal with Flat earth prominently, because despite the loud volume of "flat earth supporters", there is basically no established scholarship that says the Earth is flat. If your concern about there being "little to no negatives listed" were a valid concern, it would be reflected in existing scholarship on the topic. If that scholarship doesn't exist, we can't very well include it in the article. --Jayron32 15:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

OTOH, the lead of the article on the Earth does not take up half its space with rebutting the flat earth theory. TFD (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow? I assume this is a joke but one can never be sure. The flat earth theory is mentioned exactly once in the whole article, and it isn't mentioned at all in the lead. --Jayron32 23:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say the flat earth theory does not take up half the earth lead. I try to avoid irony etc. My point is that the wording of the lead reads like a rebuttal of the anti-immigrant position. It could probably be re-written making the same points but in a different tone. TFD (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 contains data that addresses the points in Paragraph 2. I fail to see how that is inappropriate. Paragraph 3 hardly has a tone beyond "Here's a bunch of data". It presents no value to that data. --Jayron32 11:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is the second paragraph devoted to arguments of opponents of illegal immigration? The second paragraph of Earth is not devoted to the flat earth theory. The third paragraph as you say then debunks the anti-immigrant claims.

This is giving too much weight to fringe views. The article should emphasize the topic, i.e., illegal immigration to the U.S., rather than the "debate."

Better articles to compare this with include ones on evolution or climate change which have also "been a matter of intense debate in the United States." While those articles may mention the "debate," they don't spend half the lead discussing it. Readers want to know about evolution or climate change rather than the reasons why they are preferred to creationism or climate skepticism.

TFD (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Better articles to compare this with include ones on evolution or climate change" These are hardly comparable. Our current understanding of evolutionary biology depends on about 2 centuries of scientific research, and on data provided by paleontology. Our understanding of climate change depends on climatology and on data collected from all continents. Immigration and relative policies are not purely scientific topics, and there is no uniform way to estimate the economic or cultural impact of immigration. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There actually is a lack of uniformity in expert opinions on evolution and climate change, other than a consensus that both of them are real. But like illegal immigration, there are fringe views that have no expert support. For example, the view that illegal immigrants are a "social and economic burdens on law-abiding natives" is just as false as the claim that evolution or climate change are hoaxes. TFD (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A tiny edit needed in the Legislation section

In the paragraph that begins, "In 1996, Congress debated two immigration bills - one focused on limiting legal immigration, and another other focused on illegal immigration." Someone should fix "another other", presumably by deleting the word "other". I can't do it. Thanks. 76.236.220.28 (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. 13:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Section out of date

Section talking about net reduction of undocumented immigrants since Great Recession is out of date. Footnotes 21-24 are all more than four years old. 2601:644:401:14B0:0:0:0:D125 (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Much of the data in the article is 4 to 6 years out of date. The source for one graph is this site: https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/border-security/border-security-metrics-report, but this site has much more current data that used in the article. The article needs to be brought up to date. Tail Hook TailHook (talk 05:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TailHook (talk • contribs) 05:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: States and their Secrets

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gracemillettvanderbilt (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Gracemillettvanderbilt (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022

I didn't see any mention of an additional economic effect from illegal immigration: it puts downward pressure on employment costs of business owners.

Can you please add a mention of this economic effect?

\ 2600:8801:2825:3900:89A1:8B91:2390:A413 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done. That’s an advocacy site, not a reliable source. Sorry. Dronebogus (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

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

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

On 17 April 2023 User:Wikiexplorationandhelping tagged this article as being unbalanced, but didn't provide an explanation of which views are over/underrepresented. This is a highly complex and contentious topic, so simply tagging it as unbalanced isn't that helpful without discussion and explanation. -- Revoran (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh hello there! I even forgot this existed. Well, I've seen a video off wiki named "How Wikipedia Lies To You" made by Pax Tube talking about this article (timestamp 3:14). He mentions that on a neutral website, "one would expect to simply see a description of the phenomenon". Now that I have looked at the article again, it seems that there was a new source added that is against illegal immigration, so it's more neutral than before. But I believe that the arguments for and against shall be moved to the controversy section, or a new section altogether. What do we think here? (I hereby disclose that I am NOT being paid to make this comment.) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"it seems that there was a new source added that is against illegal immigration, so it's more neutral than before" What the heck are you talking about? Articles are not supposed to balance opposing views on topics. We have a specific policy on false balance":

• • • "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

    Well, with all that said, this article does seem to cover all those points. Looks like the unbalanced tag is no longer necessary. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Graph at the Top of the Page is Incorrect, Should be Removed Until a Replacement is Made

A friend of mine checked the graph against the source (for the sake of quick reference, this data is pulled from Table 39 on page No. 105) during a discussion we had and, having double-checked his finding, I can confirm that it is the case. Whoever made the graph mislabeled the data to the point that it practically inverts the data.

To give a clear and stark example, in the year 2000, the data from that page number lists 188,467 removals and 1,675,876 returns. The displayed graph's key says that red is the color showing returns and that the lighter red (salmon?) shows removals. Thus, you would expect the red to have about 1.5 on the graph and for the salmon portion to be comparatively tiny. However, the graph shows the inverse, with more than 1.5 million removals represented by the color red and a comparatively small number of returns represented with the salmon color.

Every year follows this exact pattern, so I am concluding that this was a problem of whoever made the graph probably inputted the data correctly but mislabeled the graph key. As such, I ask for someone with permission to edit the page to please remove the graph temporarily until a corrected replacement graph can be made. YIMBYzus (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm the uploader of the chart and will check into this issue today. —RCraig09 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, YIMBYzus, and welcome to Wikipedia. It was indeed a labeling error on my part in May. I've just uploaded a Version 2 that changes the order of "Returns..." and "Removals..." labels in the legend in the upper left. To see the change, you may have to by-pass old cached versions of the file when you refresh your browser. —RCraig09 (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for making the correction. YIMBYzus (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The part on sanctuary cities is outdated.

does anyone have real 2020-2023 stats for them? -Jf (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

All of their data are deliberately obsolete. They deliberately ignore the last 3 years. 75.114.200.33 (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Very bad formatting, possibly biased, overly long

Too often do the authors just revert to rattling off every study they can find, quoting from each, one by one, paragraph after paragraph. Not only does it make for a disorganized and tedious reading, it also leaves a strong impression the author is trying very hard to convince you of something. You can see this type of formatting on numerous topics of contentious nature, but never where the topic is beyond doubt, like eg heliocentrism.

The article requires a reformatting so that it actually summarizes the relevant literature, instead of being a score count of how many citations one can fit in a section. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Formatting is horrible, probably deliberate. I found some numbers buried in the middle of the article and it took me 20 minutes to find them again. It is just a wall of text with a bunch of irrelevant sentiments when we just need specific data: how many illegals cross every year especially in 2021-2023 which is probably the most important trend. 75.114.200.33 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)