Open main menu

Contents

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Illegal immigration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Irregular Migration and Illegal ImmigrationEdit

Those terms seem to be synonymous but not strictly interchangeable. Illegal immigration has a strict definition in the sense that it is a violation of the immigration laws of a particular country. Irregular migration seems to be a more general term. For example if a person runs over the border from North Korea to South Korea, then he is migrating irregularly, emigrating illegally, but immigrating legally. Heptor talk 21:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

International Organization for MigrationEdit

Its opinion on the terminology usage was recently included in the article. In a previous version of the article someone even presented their opinion as a statement by the UN [1]. I want to discuss if this organization is sufficiently notable for their opinion to be mentioned at all. They have a web site and a Wikipedia page, but this Wikipedia page mostly references the web site and a YouTube video. This don't appear to be notable enough to be mentioned next to New York Times and Rush Limbaugh, per WP:UNDUE. Heptor talk 21:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The IOM is a UN agency. It is a major player in the world of international migration policy, and it is certainly worth citing them here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Larry. That's fair enough, but could you source or substantiate what you wrote above? Is IOM officially a "UN Agency"? Who says it is a "Major player in the world of international migration policy"? The Wikipedia Article about IOM isn't exactly helpful. It describes IOM as a "related organization of the United Nation", and this statement is one of the very few in the article that are sourced somewhere else then IOM's own web site. Heptor talk 22:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The UN refers to it as a UN agency, for example here, though the term "agency" is perhaps being employed loosely. As for being a major player, this article states "the IOM today operates as a major source of intelligence, assessment, advice, and technical assistance in connection with national and regional border policies and practice...the IOM has become a major operator in the field of international borders and migration governance". This describes it as "the leading intergovernmental organization in the field of migration". Here is the introduction to a whole special issue of a journal about the IOM (which also discusses its status). There are many more sources if you search for them. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It appears that IOM's connection to the (rest of the) UN is somewhat loose, but it is there. I am happy to leave their opinion where it is.
For future use, it could be interesting to know how exactly IOM is integrated into the UN. What I think is especially weird is that 1) IOM has its own constitution, quite independent of the UN, 2) countries may join IOM directly and independently of their UN membership, and 3) IOM has a different, and more limited, membership compared to the UN. So this organization seems to maintain a reasonable degree of independence from the UN organization. Until recently the article presented their opinion as opinion of the UN, and I think this was highly inappropriate. Heptor talk 22:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

criminal lawEdit

present there is category:criminal law but since illegal immigration varies between being a civil or a criminal offense varying by region, does it belong under these specific categories or a broader parent category? ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Because this section refers specifically to US law, it belongs in Illegal immigration to the United States, not here. Plazak (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Heptor's recent editsEdit

@Heptor: Regarding this, let's talk it out. Could you explain what you believe to be a misrepresentation of sources? And what was wrong with my "removal"? I already explained how it is OR to cite a newspaper article that happens to use the word "illegals" for the claim that the phrase "illegal immigrants" is "often shortened" (presumably in a non-derogatory manner). Let's talk it out rather than reverting back and forth. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: You started making controversial edits to the article in places that were stable for a long time(your first edit on July 14th [2]), so I appreciate that you took it to the talk page. With regards to your edits:
  1. The position of International Organization for Migration on the issue is already mentioned in the article. IMO is an organization that is affiliated with the UN (read the WP article). Like many other UN organizations, its decisions are not binding to the UN as whole. The nearest we have to such decisions are the GA and SC resolutions, and even they are usually quoted specifically as GA and SC resolutions on Wikipedia. Tabloids often don't make these kinds of distinctions, but this is an encyclopedia.
  2. Nothing is wrong with providing a few notable examples of the use of "illegals". I now also added a source stating explicitly that the word "illegals" is often used by hardliners[3]. So maybe this statement was sloppily sourced, but it is not a controversial statement so WP policy is less strict about sources in such cases.
Thanks, Heptor (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I made two edits. One was a routine, non-controversial removal of a citation to a source that didn't verify the content, when other perfectly good sources that did were already cited. The other was a revert of a WP:BOLD edit you made a few months ago. Technically, per WP:BURDEN and BRD respectively, the job of bringing it to the talk page was yours, so implying at this point (after you had already shirked the responsibility) that it was not your responsibility to begin with is questionable.
I am not familiar with these GA and SC resolutions. Could you explain what they are, and how they indicate that the position of the IMO is different from that of other UN-affiliated bodies?
The statement itself is not controversial (I don't think I implied it was...?), but listing examples of the practice as though they were citations that verified the content is generally to be avoided.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
UN Security Council and UN General Assembly are the principal governing bodies of the United Nations. UN also has many specialized agencies, and also related organizations such as IOM. Such specialized agencies and related organizations do not have jurisdiction over each others's nomenclature. I'm not sure if you noticed yet, but the article already mentions IMO's preferred terminology. IMO doesn't have the authority to speak for the rest of the UN. If you believe that the UN as a whole has similar policy, then please provide sources for that. Thanks, Heptor (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


Victor Davis HansonEdit

A quote by Victor Davis Hanson has recently been removed from the article by Snooganssnoogans. Why? This person seems to be notable and the opinion he represents is widely held. Heptor (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

He's a complete non-expert on the topic, and it's absurd to use him to rebut the peer-reviewed research on the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand what you find so absurd. An opinion by a recognized scholar published in a major newspaper is certainly WP:Notable. There don't seem to be any disagreement of facts, just a disagreement of opinions. Heptor (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, another thing, what peer-reviewed research are you referring to? Massey presents a claim that there is something called a "bifurcation" of the labour market, a condition in which there are some jobs which apparently cannot be filled by legal citizens regardless of wages. This claim is sourced to Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, which is a publication by a activist institution, not a peer-reviewed journal. Are there sources for this claim other than this particular publication? Heptor (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Publications by the RSF are peer-reviewed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
By whom? Heptor (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
If you're unfamiliar with the concept of peer-review, read this for an explainer.[4] In short, experts on the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I am quite familiar with the concept of peer review, having done a few of those myself. The research on illegal immigration is heavily politicized, which requires diligence on our side. The problem here is that the peer review appears to have been done by the same institution that published the research, which is an apparent conflict of interest. Peer review is no guarantee of neutrality, we still need to include all notable views. Heptor (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The content we are discussing was edited by Daviddwd and Pete unseth, it would be helpful if they could weigh in on the discussion. Heptor (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
First, you boldly and falsely asserted that the RSF did not undertake peer-review. Now, you're claiming to be familiar with peer-review, yet say "that the peer review appears to have been done by the same institution that published the research"... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
He didn't say it wasn't peer-reviewed; he said 'RSF' is not a peer-reviewed journal. It's not. Daviddwd (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
It's perfectly legitimate of me to ask for details about the peer review process of a particular publication that I am not familiar with, no need to get combative. Heptor (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It's a peer-reviewed RSF publication. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey! I wanted to find a source that was reputable and voiced a widely held opinion. I felt that this page was unbalanced and didn't reflect the views of many Americans. I know many people who find the view that "Americans don't want [manual labor] jobs" condescending. Hanson is a well-respected historian and I agree that an opinion by a recognized scholar published in a major newspaper is WP:Notable! Personally I'm in favor of immigration reform, but that's irrelevant to the goal of Wikipedia promoting WP:NPOV and all notable expert opinions on the subject. Daviddwd (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
You're violating WP:FALSEBALANCE and don't understand WP:NPOV. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, what's next? Add some climate change denial nonsense to the climate change article and maybe some vaccine denial pseudoscience to the vaccine one. I mean, if adding non-expert gibberish to balance out peer-reviewed research is Wikipedia policy (it's not), surely those are the next steps? And no, Hanson has published zero peer-reviewed research on the topic of immigration. He knows nothing about this subject, and using him rebut peer-reviewed research is absurd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The word "notable" on Wikipedia basically applies to the criteria we use to decide if an article is suitable for the encyclopedia. Not every notable person is a suitable source for any article. Hanson is not a recognized scholar in this field, he's a military historian and a classicist. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Hanson has covered immigration extensively, and is clearly an expert. Come on. ModerateMike729 (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Please link to a peer-reviewed study by Hanson on the topic of immigration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
It appears that Hansson is indeed more a disseminator of ideas than a researcher on his own, so we may have mixed pairs and oranges here. Anyway, the theories of Gordon Hanson and Douglas Massey got sandwiched between Borjas and Hansson, which wasn't necessary to begin with. Heptor (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


Economy and labour market, Hanson and MasseyEdit

Currently, the article states that Gordon Hanson and Douglas Massey criticized George Borjas, and said that his position is oversimplified and does not account for contradictory evidence, such as the low net illegal immigration from Mexico to the US before the 1980s despite significant economic disparity.

The argument, as presented in the article, appears to be a non sequitur. From what is written, it is not clear how the low net illegal immigration from Mexico before the 1980s has anything to do with illegal immigrants competing for the low-income jobs with workers in the US. Could someone please summarize this opinion more coherently? Otherwise, it is not necessary to mention this argument at all, we can just state that they criticized Borjas and leave it at that. Heptor (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Good observation! In addition -the linked reference on "The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration" - Gordon H. Hanson - April 2007 doesn't support the phrasing mentioned in the article -and which you've pointed out. Nowhere does Gordon Hanson say Borjas' position is "oversimplified and does not account for contradictory evidence" in the linked paper -and nowhere is Massey quoted in that article! Looks like some editor inserted those comments and provided a link to a paper from Hanson while hoping no one will actually read it. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Illegal immigration" page.