Talk:Illegal immigration/Archive 2

Suggestion for external link

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=336 This page had a pretty comprehensive description of the global struggle with illegal migration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.207 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Error in definition

There's an error in the definition of an illegal immigrant, which in addition contradicts what the wikipedia article on visas says. A visa is issued to allow entry into a country, once a person enters the country, an immigration official extends an authorization to stay for a given period of time. The visa may well expire before that time, and that does not constitute an illegal act. The website referenced in that paragraph does not support the erroneous definition given here. Tinchoman 02:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To clean up, I think the hole definition should be changed to that of "persons who lives in a country without legal permission to stay there". The hole thing about "violation of immigration law" is way to broad. Illegal immigrants most of the time travel legaly to the country, through for exapmle tourist visas. On the other hand people who should not bee seen as illegal residents frequently crosses borders illegaly. An example is the refugee who enters clandestinely and then register at the police as an asylum seeker. It is another issue that asylum seekers may go under ground after having their claim rejected. Bread and butter is certainly relatet objects, but they are still two different things. The theme~s of illegal entry and illegal recident should be treated in separate articles. Alenepaagata (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested_move

I have requested that this page be moved back to Illegal immigration, as it appears that the move to The History of Illegal immigration is an attempt at a POV fork. The user that did the move tried to insert a POV essay at Illegal immigration. Dave6 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Such a drastic change as moving this article should have been done only after discussing it and reaching a consensus. I agree. This change needs to be reverted.-Psychohistorian 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think people often forget that 'illegal' and 'immigrant' are artificial and arbitrary terms totally created by the minds of men. There is just as much work taking care of a family as there was a 1000 years ago. It really ultimately depends on one factor. Are you going to work for yourself or work for the Fed. If I paid you in cokeacola you work for cokeacola. If you work for Federal Reserve notes... I think you get the idea. 67.171.114.153 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Number of deaths in border crossing

First, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Second, the Wikipedia article links to a dead source (so we can't verify it). That means that the statement in this article is supported by an unreliable source. So, its getting tagged with {{Fact}} and will be removed in one week if a source is not found. Incidentally, I seem to remember that the Derechos site referred to border deaths not deaths of illegal border crossers. Border deaths would include anyone who died on the border. Even if they referred to people who were not unidentifiable who died on the border, deaths of illegal border crossers is only a subset of that (Native Americans in the area who are not registered by the government, corpses which have decomposed beyond recognition, etc. would also have to be factored in).-Psychohistorian 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Advocates

• Advocates for illegal immigration accuse much of the anti-illegal immigration sentiment on racism and/or xenophobia.

Who are the "advocates for illegal immigration" that we're referring to? -Will Beback · † · 06:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about this myself. --Ramsey2006 04:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll post more on this later, but I suggest that you do a search on "'illegal immigration' and 'xenophobia"'" on Google.-Psychohistorian 12:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you list some examples of Advocates for illegal immigration? Terjen 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, "I'll post more on this later". However, I am curious as to what alternative wording you'd prefer. "Advocates for immigration" is wrong because there are so many advocates of immigration who are AGAINST illegal immigration and "some advocates of immigration" is wrong because it is weasel words.-Psychohistorian 20:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we find the folks who talk "the anti-illegal immigration sentiment on racism and/or xenophobia" and then decide how best to describe them? Many of them may simply be human rights advocates with no strong position on immigraition. -Will Beback · † · 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Move without discussion?

The page was moved to Undocumented/Unauthorized immigration, apparently without discussion. (If it was discussed somewhere obvious and I missed it, sorry). I think it's a good idea to discuss a potentially controversial page move like this one, especially on a page about such a contentious subject. I think we should come to consensus about the name of the page and then move it. Further, I think the slash in the title is not so good, since slashes create subpages. And there's no need to have all the names of a subject in the page name, since plenty of subjects have more than one name. Therefore, I suggest a move to either Undocumented immigration or Unauthorized immigration. I'd also be OK with a move back to Illegal immigration, though I think the mover's concerns about the negative connotations of that are valid. So I favor 'unauthorized', which preserves the idea of illegal with maybe less negative connotations. What do others think? delldot talk 16:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the name change makes sense. I don't really have a strong preference between 'undocumented' and 'unauthorized'. --Ramsey2006 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should "sugar-coat" anything. If it's against the law, it's illegal. Vizierde 18:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved back to Illegal immigration

I moved this article back to its original title; let's all discuss the idea of a name change first and then work towards a consensus before we decide if a name change is appropriate. Perhaps it would be wise to Archive the above and start the talk page fresh with this discussion. ProfessorPaul 04:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Small error?

Source number 2 (http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=344) is cited as saying that "1 in roughly 20 Colombians now live abroad", when in fact the cited website says in the first sentence that "roughly one in 10" now live abroad. Am I missing something obvious, or should this be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.137.6 (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Child born to foreign parents in France.

"Another example is formed by children of foreigners born in countries observing jus soli ("right of territory"), such as France. In that country, one may obtain French nationality if he was born in France - but, due to recent legislative changes, it is only granted at the age of eighteen, and only upon request."

The bold part is not true anymore. There has been a new law in 1998 that abolished these "recent" (1993) legislative changes. Now a child born in France to foreign parents is automatically given French citizenship once he reaches 18 (if he has lived at least 5 years in France since he is 11). However if he does not want French citizenship, he must explicitly request it : there is a delay of 6 months before his 18th birthday and a delay of 12 months after his 18th birthday.

A child born in France to foreign parents can also be given French citizenship earlier under certain circumstances :

- at 13 if the parents request it (with the child's consent)

- at 16 : the child can request it himself

Source :

Depuis le ler septembre 1998, date d’entrée en vigueur de la loi du 16 mars 1998 relative à la nationalité, qui a supprimé le régime de la manifestation de volonté institué par la loi du 22 juillet 1993, tout enfant né en France de parents étrangers acquiert la nationalité française à sa majorité si, à cette date, il a en France sa résidence et s’il a eu sa résidence habituelle en France pendant une période continue ou discontinue d’au moins cinq ans, depuis l’âge de onze ans. Une faculté de déclination de la nationalité française dans les six mois qui précèdent sa majorité ou dans les douze mois qui la suivent, de même que l’acquisition anticipée par déclaration à partir de l’âge de seize ans, sous certaines conditions, sont également prévues. Enfin, la nationalité française peut être réclamée, sous certaines conditions, au nom de l’enfant mineur né en France de parents étrangers, à partir de l’âge de treize ans et avec son consentement personnel.

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/les-francais-etranger_1296/vos-droits-demarches_1395/nationalite-francaise_5301/index.html 195.132.163.44 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Citation?

"According to the Sam Pohl County Office of Human Relations"

There is no citation for this and a quick Googling will confirm this office does not exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Westcoast604 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for spotting that and reporting it. The quotation is real, but some vandal came through and changed the name of the agency. It's really the "Santa Clara County Office of Human Relations."[1]. -Will Beback · † · 09:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed "crazy movement" to "sanctuary movement." That's what it was called back in the day and that's what the Santa Clara County Office called it.Berkeleysappho 01:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection from vanadlism

Given that this article appears to be a magnet for vandalism, it should have some protection from changes by unregistered users. Plazak 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm just trying to do a little research and have already seen 3 vandalisms and reverts as I've been reading the page (and trying to figure out how to revert them myself.) 139.135.199.68 15:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

this is the best i was find information here

Userbox?

Could anyone PM me the location of the userbox for this subject in america? -PatPeter 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Standards in sources

There are several sources that don't meet minimum standards of quality, including a source that makes unsubstantiated and disreputable attacks against illegal immigrants' effects on American Healthcare. There are several similar sources that quote from blatently biased anti-illegal-immigrant sources that do not dignify their attacks against illegal immigrants with any rational scholastic or academic rigor. Sources such as cis.org are not impartial or unbiased sources and are rather organizations with the purpose of advocating reduced immigration. Such sources are not appropriate for the main articles unless they are clearly detailed as to their specific goals or their advocacy slants. The entire "illegal immigration" article on Wikipedia is currently in desperate need of review for bias as it currently includes portions that present blatantly biased anti-immigrant sources and statements JesseEconGov 06:40, 6 September 2007

=====================================================================

In politics, the term may imply a larger set of social issues and time constraints with disputed consequences in areas such as economy, social welfare, education, health care, slavery, prostitution, crime, legal protections, voting rights, public services, and human rights. Illegal emigration, in contrast, refers to unlawfully leaving a country.

---

We continue to present sources that range from the General Accounting Office of the United States, to the State Accounting processes, to the investment centers that must have some knowledge of this country to provide advice. Bear Stearns, for example, gives us a +20 million illegal aliens population figure after paying a considerable amount of money to get that figure.

We need, and we want, studies that use a reasonable population base to obtain facts and figures. The Census would be jim dandy for that purpose, but it continues to be ignored by the pro illegal aliens group. We need verifiable information and with Mexico and Mexican Lobby Groups involved in this process, the links to the information have not been forth coming.

When we examine this statement.. There are several sources that don't meet minimum standards of quality, including a source that makes unsubstantiated and disreputable attacks against illegal immigrants' effects on American Healthcare. .... we can see it is not supported. Anyone who wishes, however, can go to Google and ask for "illegal aliens Hospitals", and instantly receive several million hits that DO support the ugly effect of illegal aliens, and refutes this statement very thoroughly.

JesseEconGov needs to document the disreputable sources. He needs to dignify his attacks against pro law immigration advocutes with rational scholastic and academic rigor. To this point, no such effort has been made to support the postive effects, (if any) of the illegal aliens. I would say then, there are NOT any disputed consequences. Eleminating CIS.org as a potential source then, become an exercise in censorship only because the negative aspects of the illegal aliens would seem to be, at this point, the only side documented. Ohwellii (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

US nomenclature

As illegal alien is the official designation of the US government, IMHO, it should not appear behind a "slang" term . If it must share a line with the slang term, then the official term should be given precedence. I also think that as a legal term used by the government, it should appear first on that list. I would appreciate any concerns or comments before I am unduly boldDie4Dixie 05:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In the past, it has been impossible to get an overall consensus on this matter. The fall-back position is to use whichever term is most appropriate in the context. I agree with your intention to clarify that "ilegal alien" is not a slang term. We should make sure that we avoid making this article US-centric. We already have Illegal immigration to the United States for that material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I will make a good faith effort to be bold. If there are any concerns with the edit, please talk with me hereDie4Dixie 09:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the order and made the explanation (put it in brackets) match the others that had explanations for the sake of uniformity.Die4Dixie 09:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be called "Undocumented Worker". The current title "Illegal Immigrant" is highly offensive.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onewhocaresalot (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally , I think the term should be the one that the legislature has given us when the status was codified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs) 09:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all such people are workers, or illegally crossing a border to find work. As for whether "illegal immigrant" is an offensive term, I'm not sure there is a consensus on that. Funnyhat (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Crime opportunities a reason to immigrate

There are many examples of existing criminal gangs/organizations crossing over the border, and setting themselves up in areas that provide opportunities for them to prey upon others. So I added that as a reason why people illegally immigrate to a country. I'm not referring to people that come to this country for work, and then commit crimes while here, but those who were members of criminal organizations to begin with, having a gang culture, and send their members to set up in new areas specifically to expand their operations. Dream Focus (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone added the name of one of the criminal gangs. Didn't have a sentence saying, for example, and then their name, just their name. Should we list all the best known gangs, or have a link to another page listing all of them? If you want to add an example, please do so in a complete sentence. Dream Focus (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Coyotes vs. minutemen

The description of det mexican human smuglers, aka coyotes (aka polleros), is only about their faltering morale standards and illtreatment of migrants, especially so called rape treas. This information is only referd to by internet articles by people related to so called Minutemen (aka vigilantes). As all knowledge is subjective I wouldnt say that this is necesarally wrong, but it describes only one looking point on the smuglers: the one of their sworen enemies. A few other views and sources could be good, for eksample by one of the leading etnigraphic researches on the topic, David Spener, who has an exelent article on the different views called "Mexican Migrant-Smuggling: A Cross-Border Cottage Industry" in Journal of International Migration and Integration, vol 5. nr 3, 2004. Sheldon Zhang's "Human smugling - all roads lead to America" is also a good tip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.179.53 (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

I think the term "irregular" (im)migration is a quite often used one all over the world.

"Illegal" is the normal in a statecentered legalistic perspective, but in an article about the global phenomenon on people entring states without their permishion should maybe take a broder one, also including Human Rights oriented views wich also encompass the basic individual right of moving to other countries as stated in several international declerations. (Alenepaagata (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)).

Um, what? Welcome to Earth. Most countries have immigration laws. This article includes information of the instance which one enters another country lawlessly, thus validating the term "Illegal Immigration." Human rights is on a different page. --Garzj019 (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I just thought the term "irregular immigration" at least should be mentioned, as it is used veru much in different litterature. The term "boat people" isnt very juridicial either, is it? My other argument was just a note. Nothing to be upset about. Alenepaagata (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A search on Google brings up many European sources using "irregular immigration". I didn't search long enough to find one that defines the term. Even without a definition I think it's worth including since it's in use. We're here to describe, not proscribe. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The term is defined just the same as "illegal immigration". It is just used in a less state/law enforcement centered and more migration and human rights centered perspective, as for example by the IOM. It isn't exlucivly European either (see Shelod Zhang's "Human smuggling: all roads lead to America"). Allthough certanly less used in media than "illegal", it is a well estblished term. Alenepaagata (talk) 15:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Methods

I think this section is quite messy. The mess is related to the destinction between illegal entry and illegal residens that I have commented in relation to the Definition.

It is stated that "Some illegal immigrants enter a country legally and then overstay or violate their visa. For example, most of the (..) illegal immigrants in Canada are refugee claimants whose refugee applications were rejected but who have not yet been ejected from the country." Overstying visa, and staying after rejected asylum is not the same thing. Visa is a way of getting in to a country legaly. I don't have any data on Canada, but in most countries asylum seekers enters illegaly. Seeking asylum is a way of legalising an illegal entry or residens (although many get rejected and thereby get illegalised).

The hole section should be considered deleted if not cleaned up. Cleaning up should at least mean seperating "methods" of illeagli residensy (ie how do the people with illegal residensy get to the country?) and "methods" of illegal entry (ie how do people cross border illegaly? by profesional smuglers, help from relatives, by themselvs - with wich means? fals dokuments, clandestinely etc) Alenepaagata (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Small Error

I just wanted to underline the fact that Slovakia doesn't share a border with Turkey and Greese (I am talking about the passage about the dangers for the illegal immigrants / death ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.36.153 (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Causes -> War -- no context given for Germany

I think it would be good if we changed

For example, people in Germany that were considered minorities [...]

to

For example, during World War II, people in Germany that were considered minorities...

to clarify those conditions. People reading the article unfamiliar with the current conditions in Germany (i.e., good) might assume that this is happening now, or at least won't have context for it.

--ddr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.229.242 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

why are some people pro illegal immigration???

why are some people pro illegal immigration when it's just WRONG in all senses of the word??! That's what's wrong with our country. The momemnt they realize this and get rid of those who don't belong here period, we can all start looking at gass prices evening out or decreasing and more jobs openning up.

For an answer to the question, consider for example reading Jason L. Riley (May 15, 2008). Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders. Gotham. ISBN 1592403492. Tim Cavanaugh (April 16, 2006). "Open the Borders". Reason.. See also the entry on Free migration, which I have added to our See Also section in case others are curious about this issue. Terjen (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, a friend of mine gave me the same book. I haven't found the time to read it yet. Are Mr. Riley's arguments primarily economic? - Schrandit (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that this talk page exists only to discuss improvements to the article, not to discuss the topic itself. See the guidelines at WP:TPG. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a vMexican political scientist named Fredo Arias-King who has done an excellent job of describing the roots of the problem http://www.cis.org/taxonomy/term/125 RichardBond (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Causes without effects?

There is a large section on the causes of illegal immigration, but no section on its effects. This seems unbalanced. Readin (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I have added information from the Immigration in the UK about illigal imigration as this page only had the EU which said nothing about the UK. Alexsau1991 (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed scurrilous allegation

I just removed the following text:

In many spots on the U.S.-Mexico border, there are "rape trees" on which either condoms or the undergarments of women sexually abused by the "coyotes" are hung as trophies.

This was cited to a bunch of opinion articles. In order to belong here, a claim like this needs to be sourced to factual, authoritative sources. --FOo (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Link here also questions whether rape trees really exist http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/rape-trees-and-idiots-useful-and-otherwise/. Doesn't seem to be any real evidence. (Gerdemb (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Dominican Republic

Anyone know if that is going down? It is probable, but we need a better source and the description page for an indie movie. - Schrandit (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A better source, or at least a more precise citation, are needed. As for the latter, who in the move is making this assertion? Is it an anonymous voice over, an interview, a statement by the government? What reason do we have to treat the filmmaker as a reliable source? An assertion like this should be sourceable to more than one publication, so we shold be able to back it up with something in print.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan

According to this YouTube Video, Japan has had, and is still having, problems with Illegal Immigrants from China. [2] --Arima (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If we can find a better source we should include something about it.   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul of article; removing tags; possible subpages?

Hey all - I worked for some hours on the Causes section, which was rather conjecture/news-article-based without much reference to the large body of scholarly work on illegal immigration. Particularly, the economic causes of illegal immigration needed to be expanded (two paragraphs on "Poverty" were all there was previously). I've added three major models of immigration, but there are others that I have not gotten to. I may have to decrease the length of the Structure Demand model. My reference links are not done yet, and I'm too knackered to do more copy-editing, so by all means edit what I wrote. I think I am being fairly balanced in describing the explanations, but please do comment or change if you do not agree.

Second, I removed the "citations" and "world-view" tags from the top. I did not see any more missing citations after cleaning up the Causes section. I also have not found a comment on why the article is not a world view, and I find the long list of country-specific policies to cover a pretty wide span of most countries that have a problem with illegal immigration. Of course, most of the research and news on the topic are from a US or European viewpoint, as they are the major destination countries. I also think that a better "Causes" section, as I will focus on for now, will help with understanding the experience of illegal migrants from the developing world.

Finally, what do you all think about making some sub-pages? I think it would be a good idea for the list of state-specific policies. It may also be good for the Causes if it gets any larger, although I am more reluctant to move it since it is a central issue and summaries of more complicated models would be hard.

I've actually never made a new page before (newbie!) so if someone else wants to make a list page for the countries that would be much appreciated!

Look forward to improving this important article!Wilytilt (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

NUMBERS???

So just how many illegal immigrants are there, globally, does anyone know? Sources: IOM UN UNHCR OSCE ... Notawsabod (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not more of the costs factors being mentioned?

There are so many different factors as to why we need immigration reform and why I am against illegal immigration, but the biggest reason has to be the costs factors of illegal immigration. I notice that the article makes no mention as to the estimated costs involved in educating illegal aliens and their children. I recently did a research paper on the costs factors of illegal immigration and in CA alone, they spend over $9B a year on educating illegal aliens and their children. This is coming at a time where CA had budget short falls all over the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.208.123 (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wars

It's funny how there's not a single mention of the U.S:s wars and illegal immigration caused as a result. Revan ltrl (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

Under the heading "Terminology" the following opinion is given as fact without being sourced: "There are many views on illegal immigration and it all depends on your political standpoint." --UP2U2DO (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

UK Numbers

The section on the UK seems to be based mainly on figures from MigrationWatch, a right-wing pressure group. This is hardly an unbiased source and those figures should be verified. 62.254.137.42 (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

visa.apply.request

all.steel.fabrication —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.163.174 (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

apply.visa.kitchen.equip+92.03004716689

all.stainlees.steel.fabrication.landury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.163.174 (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference to definition required...

I went to add http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegal%20alien as a reference to the definition of Illegal Immigrant and found the page protected.. I have not been editing on the wiki long enough to make the reference myself.. Thank you to whomever can get to this. Technical 13 (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring Illegal People

So the refactoring will split this topic off into Illegal entry for people who swim across borders, Immigration law for violations thereof, Farmworker for people working illegally, and this article for anchor babies and other illegal stays for the purposes of illegal living, right? Hcobb (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

""Farmworker" would not be the right term in this context. "Migrant worker" or "undocumented worker" might be more relevant.   Will Beback  talk  05:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(Err... your section header is problematic; there are no illegal people, there are only illegal immigrants Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC))

Huh? Immigrants are people.   Will Beback  talk  05:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh c'mon... failing students are people, too, but they're not "failing people" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot of pelole object to "illegal immigrant" because it implies the people are illegal. We don't refer to illegal drivers, we refer to people who break driving laws. Again, let's see what Hcobb was intending before we gang up on him.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that rationale, but there still are "failing students," "unskilled workers," and whatnot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

To say nothing of "anchor baby." Is there anything constructive being suggested here? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Hcobb is suggesting a way of delineating the scope of a several inter-related topics. Perhaps he can clarify.   Will Beback  talk  05:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

By suggesting people only cross borders illegally by swimming, suggesting that all farmworkers are illegal immigrants, and using slurs such as anchor baby? I fail to see the constructive suggestion. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Currently we have a bunch of related articles that are all written from different POVs without coordination. Given how poorly linked they are, nobody even knows how many different articles we have on this one subject, especially when illegal work is handled inline in different places, as I've linked to above. Hcobb (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for the constructive suggestion that isn't based on all border crossers being swimmers, all farmworkers being illegal immigrants, and building on slurs such as "anchor babies." Do you have a constructive suggested edit or not? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

POV title

Given that the move discussion was not regularly advertised (how ironic), and that the new title is problematic, I've tagged it as POV. The very first sentence shows why: The phenomenon is called "irregular," but its definition uses the words "legal requirements" and "violating the immigration laws". This is the very definition of "illegal," not simply "irregular". This needs to be addressed per WP:SPADE, and if no agreement can be found, there needs to be a new, widely advertised discussion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what is ironic, but yeah, this is probably better suited at a title like "illegal immigration." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(Ironic= not regularly advertising a move to "irregular"... or maybe it's to be expected after all Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC))

Where would you have liked it advertised, or would like a future discussion to be advertised? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You use the template {{move}} and a bot will list it @ WP:RPM. That's usually how it's done, esp. when controversial. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, cool. Anyone have an objection to doing that now? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not a POV issue. Irregular Immigration is the accepted terminology

Every international organisation today (other than the EU) describes this as "irregular immigration" rather than "illegal immigration". "Irregular immigration" is simply a term used to describe immigration which does not conform to rules set up by each country to regulate immigration into their jurisdictions. This is not a neutrality issue, but simply a revised terminology which was created to be more inclusive. In fact, if you look at the Spanish version of the same article, you'll find that it is also called "Irregular Immigration".

If you'll look at websites for international organisations, such as the United Nations, International Organisation for Migration, International Council on Human Rights Policy, International Labor Organization, the World Bank, Global Commission on International Migration, the Center for Immigration Studies, and others, they all refer to it as "irregular immigration". See some references here of actual documents from these organisations referring to it as "irregular immigration": ILO, IOM, GCIM, ICHRP, The World Bank, UN

Here are further references: CMS, UNHRC

In fact, the UN does not even recognise the term "Illegal immigration" anymore: Article: U.N.: No Such Thing as Illegal Immigration], Reuters article

Here is a link to a glossary of immigration terminology as defined by the International Organisation for Migration: International Migration Law Glossary. You will see that looking up "illegal immigration" redirects the reader to "irregular immigration". There are countless articles on this, including national, international and non-governmental organisations, academic articles, and others. You will find that "irregular immigration" is currently the accepted terminology.

"Illegal entry" refers to the specific act of crossing a border illegally, whether it is for immigration or not. "Illegal immigration" is the same meaning as "irregular immigration" but is no longer the accepted terminology. - Kylelovesyou (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, you could have justified that with a regular move-request. We also have WP:COMMONNAME, btw. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the silliest page moves ever...

Let's start out with a really quick quote:

• "Illegal immigration is... no longer the accepted terminology." - Kylelovesyou

So is "illegal immigration" no longer acceptable? Has it joined negro and stewardess as words which are dated and archaic? The President of the United States(Barack Obama) has used it countless times. The New York Times, a newspaper which is always careful about what terminology it uses, always uses 'illegal immigration' and has never used 'irregular immigration'. Personally, I think a term the President of the United States and the New York Times uses without controversy is quite acceptable. Notice I didn't use Sarah Palin or Fox News as examples... I quoted a politician and a media outlet which are generally considered liberal and open to political correctness. And really... who the hell has even heard anyone use the term "Irregular immigration" in any discussion about "not-legal-immigration"?

This page move was POV-pushing at its finest. From their very first edit to the page, Kylelovesyou made his/her intentions known... an edit in which Kylelovesyou: (1) Changed a bunch of occurrences of "illegal immigration" to "irregular immigration" (a term which hadn't appeared in any previous revisions of the article) (2) Put an edit summary of removing bias of the term "illegal immigration" - yes i am an expert on the subject (which is strange since Kylelovesyou almost never does edit summaries) (3) Marked it as a minor edit(something else which Kylelovesyou isn't known to do either).

Kylelovesyou then started a page move poll on the talk page(without advertising it which is advisable when the move is controversial... even a "non-expert" on immigration like me knows this would be a controversial move). After three support votes (one of which was an anonymous IP) Kylelovesyou decided he had the majority he/she needed and moved the page. So with three votes in an unadvertised poll, the work of over 2300 other Wikipedians making over 5,000 edits to an article called "illegal immigration" which didn't even include the term "irregular immigration" was basically nullified.

Bottom line: This move wasn't done in the right way. If someone doesn't start a new poll to move it back within 24 hours... I will. I might even move it without a poll. If that means I get reported to WP:ANI or wherever then so be it. This move violates WP:COMMON, WP:NPOV, and especially WP:SOAP... Let's be honest before this page move, "irregular immigration" was an obscure term seldom used outside of academia ,the UN(which is known for coining bizarre obscure terms which never catch on with the general public), and extreme pro-immigration organizations. But now this obscure term shows up as the number two listing under a Google search for "illegal immigration." This may have been a silly page move... but it served its purpose. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 22:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. Pages must go through bureaucracy before they are moved to ensure the decision is wise and logical. I have experience in moving pages; following procedure is extremely important. Kylelovesyou has adhered to no such thing (yes kyle, you have made this one of the silliest moves ever by breaking rules). Will be posting this page on the WIKI:RMP log shortly --(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC))

Move page

I suggest that the page be moved to "Irregular immigration". The term "illegal immigration" is no longer used by international organizations. The primary international organizations that work on migration issues ALL call it "Irregular immigration" See sources here:

• ILO
• IOM
• GCIM

See others: CMS UNHRC

I would argue that the term "illegal immigration" is not neutral in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

- Kylelovesyou (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There could be a difference, irregular meaning "not conforming to rules or expectations", and "illegal" meaning "not conforming to official rules (laws)".--Patrick (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That said, in combination with the word "immigration" it looks like it does not just mean "unusual".--Patrick (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. "illegal Immigration" is commonly used (see the attached EU document from the UNHCR website): [3]. In addition, "illegal" is more precise and self-explanatory than the euphemism "irregular", which may be mistaken to mean unusual, erratic, or episodic. Plazak (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Favor - Currently all academic sources use "irregular immigration" as opposed to "illegal". All international organizations use irregular as well with the exception of the EU (which uses illegal immigration). Every other organization working on immigration issues, such as the International Labor Organization, the International Organization for Migration and the Global Commission on International Migration, The United Nations Human Rights Council, and the Center for Migration Studies all use "irregular". (See links that I have provided several sources above for these organizations and there are plenty of academic sources available as well) I am currently doing a post-graduate degree in this area and all scholastic sources and journals now use "irregular." You have only provided an EU document, but all other supra-national organizations use "Irregular Immigration." - Kylelovesyou (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Favor - I agree that academia calls it 'irregular immigration" also most international NGOs do as well. - 130.130.37.13 (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - The Wikipedia is intended for a general audience and ought to avoid catering specifically to academics. Also. the term “irregular immigration” is just a euphemism for illegal behavior, like saying the robbery of a gas station is "an irregular consumer transaction". In addition, the fact that several organizations in favor of illegal immigration use the term “irregular immigration” does not change the fact that these irregular immigrants have indeed broken the law. Finally, the terms "illegal immigration" and "irregular immigration" don't entirely overlap, as one could immigrate to America in any number of irregular ways without becoming an undocumented worker/illegal immigrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.35.162 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Elie Weisel has said: "No human being is illegal." - reference

This point is moot however, because the law never claims to be handling or puishing "illegal humans". Rather, the law is focused on punishing those who choose to enter a country without that country's consent, and are thus breaking the laws of that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.35.162 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any other input? So far 2 in favor of moving and 1 opposed. - Kylelovesyou (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Favor - The term irregular immigration is more meaningful and less racist. Undocumented worker is the term that used to mean you failed to pay the $28 fee for a migrant work visa that could be obtained at any entry point into the United States. The term illegal immigration is actually a racist term invented in the United States by white supremacists, like William Randolph Hurst, and written into law during Herbert Hoover administration in 1929. This suspended migrant work visas for Mexican citizens, thus artificially creating an illegal class of workers by violating the Treaty of Guadalupe, while simultaneously collapsing the banking system by deporting hundreds of thousands of dwelling occupant/owners responsible for paying mortgages because of the color of their skin.Nanoatzin (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Racist? What are you talking about? The term is used to describe people who have immigrated to a country illegally. This can apply to any race or group, whether they be Europeans or Mexicans.--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

In addition, when contemporary English speakers use the term "illegal immigrant", they are almost never refering to people of color oppressed by Herbert Hoover back in the 1930's. They are merely refering to those who have immigrated without legal authorization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.35.162 (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

So by irregular you mean a steady predictable flow? Hcobb (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hcobb, the term "irregular" does not only refer to rates. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And that is why it should only be used in the titles of articles that require those multiple meanings. If the article is about illegal people committing illegal acts then call them out on it. Hcobb (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The English language is filled with words that have multiple meanings. We cannot keep all titles on Wikipedia to words that have only single definitions, it's simply not linguistically possible. Fortunately, people can actually read the contents of an article, which explains what precise definition is in use. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth pointing out that the article also covers a significant percentage of people who travel to a country legally, but then settle illegally by overstaying their visas or otherwise failing to comply with visa requirements. "Irregluar" is more inclusive than "illegal", and covers technical violations of regulations and similar issues.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Then make it clear that Illegal entry covers the crossings, by noting that as "main article" for the entry part of this article and leave "Irregular immigration" for people who stay rather than just visit. Hcobb (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

that makes some sense. To further confuse the issue: it's possible to enter illegally and then have one's status regularized through amnesty, asylum request, marriage, or other mechanism. That's all the more reason to separate the two topics.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Irregular immigration → Illegal immigration – User Kylelovesyou moved original "Illegal immigration" article to "Irregular immigration" without following standard procedure. Seems to be adamant on keeping page where it is; posted this to formalize a debate which has not adhered to Wikipedia policy. Move has been contested by several users including myself. Hope this can bring about a consensus. Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support For all the reasons given above (Though I must say it would be better to move it back to the original without discussion and then have Kylelovesyou argue the case.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME. Google (illegal 12.6 million, irregular 58,000), google news (illegal 3490, irregular 7) and google scholar (illegal 37600, 1650 all have many, many more hits for "illegal immigration" than "irregular migration" so even allowing for the inaccuracies of such searches it seems clear that "ilegal" is favoured. In the case of google scholar this still applies even when limiting the search to articles published since 2010 (illegal 4900, irregular 264) so although "irregular migration" may be commonly used in academia it's not the common name. Of the five organisation listed above a search of the CMS site shows about equal usage (illegal 10, irregular 9) and three others show significant usage of "illegal" even if "irregular" is used 2-3 times as often (UNHCR since 2011: illegal 20, irregular 66, GCIM: illegal 3, irregular 6, ILO search does not allow linking: illegal 346, irregular 587). IOM does show a very significant preference for irregular (illegal 229, irregular 8290). This to me is no where near enough to overturn the common name found through the different google search. Out articles are titled so as to to surprise the reader least and to me it's clear that "illegal" will be the less surprising. The POV argument holds no water in my opinion - either term could be said to be POV depending on your view point. If you are supportive of these types of migrants you probably don't like "illegal" due to the stigma it gives, likewise if you don't support them you likely don't like "irregular" as it hides the "real" issue that they immigrated illegally. In short I see no reason why, in this instance, we should not use the common name as determined by various google searches. Dpmuk (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per previous discussion. If Wikipedia was based off UN terminology, articles would be twice as long to accommodate all of the politically correct garbage it entails. Furthermore, "irregular" suggests illegal immigrants immigrate in an alternative way. They broke the law. There's nothing "inclusive" about it. --(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC))
• Speedy revert non-consensus move with absolutely no reasonable basis. Powers ^T 19:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Here is an ngram. Kauffner (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support per all of above comments. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 13:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Split The academic issue should keep this title while the real world impact should move back to the old title. Hcobb (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Part of me likes this idea because it might keep some of the politically correct "nonsense" off the page once it moves back(which seems likely at this point). The problem is that by Kylelovesyou's own admission, "illegal immigration = irregular immigration." So we don't need two separate articles describing the same thing. The academic argument doesn't convince me. For example, the scientific/academic term for the genus of true honey bees is Apis which is a redirect to the common term honey bee. Sure, there are plenty of articles for various genera, but usually only when there is no common name. The only way I could see "irregular immigration" as an article rather than a redirect would be some sort of article about the history of the term, but I don't see the term as historic or robust enough for that. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 19:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:POVFORK would discourage such a split, I think. Powers ^T 18:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

I have reverted it to the version before the re-write and move to match content and title; any changes can be discussed now before some move- and/or re-write-frenzy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Image with unknown copyright status removed

I've just removed the following text and reference from the article:

• <!-- Image with unknown copyright status removed: [[Image:REF1 Clajot.jpg|right|thumb|200px| [[Tenerife]] / [[Los Cristianos]], June 7, 2007 - illegal immigrants from [[West Africa]] rest in a [[Red Cross]] tent after arriving at the [[Canary Islands]]. The cost of the journey is between $880 to $1,250.<ref name="bbc"/><ref name="bbc4"/>]] -->
• <ref name="bbc4">[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3568329.stm Guinea: Unstoppable exodus]</ref>

This image had been removed by OrphanBot in Nov. 2008 and is unlikely to be restored in that form. I only mention this because I'm also removing the associated ref that had previously been causing cite errors. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

More sources

• Ferri, Javier , Antonio G. Gómez-Plana and Joan A. Martín-Montaner. "Illegal Immigration Booms and Welfare in the Host Country / Expansion de l'immigration illégale et bien-être social dans le pays d'accueil." European Journal of Population / Revue Européenne de Démographie, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 2006), pp. 353-370
• Solano García, Angel. "Does Illegal Immigration Empower Rightist Parties?." Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Oct., 2006), pp. 649-670

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The Center for Immigration Studies can be considered a reliable source. It defines it self as Pro Controlled Immigration but at significant lower levels than current immigration levels. It is listed as a Research Site on the New York Times website.

References

124.169.119.101 (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Causes of Illegal Immigration

Illegal Immigration is clearly encouraged by the prospect of a future illegal immigration amnesty and also Birth Right Citizenship. And these become particularly attractive when combined with a high average income country like the United States. I am happy for people to debate that there are benefits to illegal immigration for the host country which are similar to the arguments in favor of Free Immigration or Open Borders but not that amnesties and Birthright Citizenship are not important factors in illegal immigration. Perhaps a benefits section could added to the article.

References

124.169.119.101 (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Last Edit

I don't understand why this last edit was undone. Everything is referenced and neutral. EDIT DETAILS: 02:48, 30 October 2011‎ Seb az86556 (talk | contribs)‎ (75,217 bytes) (Reverted 7 edits by 130.130.37.13 (talk): Rv Kylelovesyou; please log in and use talkpage first. (TW)) (undo) - 130.130.37.13 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You introduced the exact same changes as Kylelovesyou (talk · contribs), so I can't help thinking that's you. However that may be, please look at the above discussions on this page, including the reversal of the move some days ago. If you want to introduce those changes, you should discuss them here first. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. let's discuss them now. - Kylelovesyou (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you start? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the primary issue with Kyle's edits is the vagueness they introduce to the article. For example:

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) suggests that "most experts today would agree that there are already inadequate legal channels for migration and especially for migration for work." In fact, many international organizations consider creating more channels for international immigration would be beneficial to the world economy. Others, however, suggest that removing immigration barriers threatens national sovereignty and creates political issues.

Notice that Kyle has used many when describing the "international organizations" that support creating more channels for international immigration. He then uses "other" to describe those who oppose it. This implies that there are more officials who support this kind of legislation. Where are the sources for this? Who are these "organizations" that support the channels? Even the quotation used is vague ("most experts today")

This vagueness can also be observed in this paragraph:

Many of these people who are forced to flee in an environmental emergency do not have time to file immigration documents or lack the means to do so. Others may emigrate from their country of origin to another due to environmental causes which prevent them from earning a livelihood. Others may choose to leave for economic reasons (i.e. environmental causes have limited their ability to earn money in their home country).

Notice again that Kyle has used "most" and "other". Yes, it is sourced, but statistics are needed to verify this claim.

The bottom line is that Kyle needs to be more clear. In addition to this, Kyle's abnormal behavior makes him difficult to trust. These behaviors are as follows:

• Generally aggresive nature when discussing (see above)
• Failure to participate in vote in issue which he started (I don't know is he was available, though still suspicious)
• Movement of article without consent of other editors
• Attempting to pass under the radar by editing as IP

That's my two cents. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC))

---

I'm not trying to be aggressive or anything else. I'm just trying to add constructive info for the article.

*Generally aggresive nature when discussing - I did not mean to do this at all. *Failure to participate in vote in issue which he started - I assumed that I already put in my reasons and had not much else to add *Movement of article without consent of other editors - I am sorry about this one. I introduced a section on the discussion page, I am not quite sure about the proper protocol for doing page moves. *Attempting to pass under the radar by editing as IP - I'm not trying to do that.

You clearly have problems with the few section you mentioned previous, however most of my edits are not controversial at all and have great sources:

• "It is officially called "illegal immigration" in the United States and by the European Union. Most International governmental and non-governmental organizations, such as the United Nations, the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and others use the term "irregular immigration"."
• "In 2010, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimated that 21.4 to 32.1 million people (or 10%–15%) of the world's total 214 million international immigrants are illegal immigrants, though the IOM notes that difficult to get accurate estimates. Other estimates put this number slightly higher. Furthermore, the IOM states that "most of these migrants enter legally but overstay the authorized stay." The majority of illegal immigrants are in the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates that there were 11 million irregular immigrants in the US in 2008, while other estimates for the US range from 7 to 20 million. If these estimates are correct, it would mean that approximately half of the total irregular immigrants in the world are living in the US."
• It IS also called "irregular immigration" quite often. This should clearly be included in the article under the terminology section, and I would argue, at the beginning of the page as well.

Can anyone find any fault with any of these at all??

References

- 130.130.37.13 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC) (kylelovesyou)

Kylelovesyou, log in to your account when you make talk page comments. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that "irregular immigration" should be mentioned in the article's terminology section, though it should not dominate it. Still unsure about its inclusion in the lead. While it is an alternative to illegal immigration, it is not widely used by national governments or the media. An alternative word is usually included in a lead if there is an equally if not more popular term used or if there are different terms for dialects (ex. Automobile, Truck, Semi-trailer truck). Irregular immigration is neither more popular nor from a different dialect. Frankly, it is politically correct diplomat jargon.

• Don't see any immediate issues with the second edit. Again, try to limit your use of "many" and "other". We'll see what others think.

• Definitely issues with those other edits. You'll have to specify and verify facts if you want to include them.

Apologies if I seemed too assuming. You can never be too careful in Wikipedia. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC))

CIS does not seem unreliable per se

Someone flagged two citations as being of questionable reliability based on the fact the source is an advocacy group. I could find no policy which states that being an advocacy group, or not, makes a source unreliable. Therefore, one has to take each reference on a case-by-case basis. I looked at the two references and the second one is certainly reliable for the claims made about birthright citizenship. I can't make out what the first source is being used to support, and it has the tone of an editorial column and should be replaced with something better. I'm going to remove that ref, remove the tag from the second ref and add a {{citation needed}} tag to the first part of the paragraph. If anyone disagrees, let's discuss it here. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You can check the NPOV notice board for sections like this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#Catholic_League "I Agree... as an advocacy group, the Catholic League is reliable for attributed statements of opinion... but not for unattributed statements of fact. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)" -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the Catholic League. Feel free to take any of the sources to the NPOV noticeboard. When I have done that in the past, there have been some POV warriors who want to blacklist publications they disagree with, but mostly they want to know what the claim is which is being supported by the source. Many of the sources used here are from sites which advocate a position on one side or the other of the issue. Some provide reliable data regardless, some do not and every one needs to be taken on it's own merits. Celestra (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You asked about the standard treatment of content from advocacy organizations. The above is Blueboar's (one of the most knowledgeable source reviewers) advice on how to treat advocacy organizations: dont use as a source for facts. if applicable, their opinions may be used if cited to them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I stated that there was no policy. Even the label of "advocacy organization" is entirely POV. Rather than pick on one site which you apparently find biased, why don't you simply evaluate the individual citations? For instance, I don't see how any reasonable person can disregard this reference out of hand.:Feere, John (August 2010). "Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison". Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved 2012-03-04.

It is a piece of research which include 70-80 reference documents. The fact that the author is a legal analyst for CIS does not disqualify the research. Celestra (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It is incredibly easy to take items from other papers and present and combine them in ways that are faulty, so simply having cites to other data does not make a paper from an organization "reliable". I am perfectly fine with CIS content being represented as content from CIS.

If you think that organizations with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy use and trust data from CIS, then we can have a discussion about whether we need to attribute to CIS their claims. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you seem to require specific third party feedback, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Center_for_Immigration_Studies_as_a_source_for_Illegal_immigration. You may provide any context you feel necessary. You may wish to view Center_for_Immigration_Studies#Reception before you make any claims as to their objectivity. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is basically a lobby group and their conclusions should be attributed to them, preferably with a statement that they are an anti-immigration lobby group.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that conclusions should be attributed, with a neutral presentation of who they are the first time they are mentioned. It is the attribution and tagging of uncontroversial facts which I find objectionable. That and the fact that the recent changes to the article are focused on a single source, rather than to all of the sources in an unbiased manner. And the fact that those changes seem to have been made without regard to how those changes impacted the appearance of the article. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Appearnce counts more than neutrality? And if you are concerned about the improper presentation of comments by advocacy groups, it seems very counter productive to revert back to the bad version for one instead of building on that correction. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Our only goal should be the improvement of the article and Wikipedia in general. Removing poor references or making sure reader is not misled should be done in a way that improves the article, not simply in a way which detracts from the message of one group. An editor who is interested in improving the article would shape the content in a readable manner while making sure the reader understands that the source may be biased. For instance, "CIS says..." could be blended into the content by adding an intelligent lead-in sentence followed by the attributed assertion or conclusion. For a paragraph in "causes", something like "Opponents of illegal immigration believe lax enforcement is one of the causes of illegal immigration. One such group, the Center for Immegration Studies, says..." would improve things. Likewise, the paragraph which begins, out of the blue, with "Douglas Massey argues ..." should have a lead-in to explain to the reader what the paragraph is about and who Mr Massey is. Oh, and the bold and italics need to go. Clearly this article is a magnet for POV warriors and this is a good opportunity for neutral editors to actually improve it. You are welcome to participate in that effort. Celestra (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent massive overhaul/deletion of most content

I'm wondering if anyone else has any concerns about this series of edits: [4]. I'm tempted to revert them all; I think a discussion should have probably taken place before a change to the whole scope of the article like this. My concerns follow.

• Information about all countries other than the USA has been removed without explanation. There is an article on Illegal immigration to the United States, but Illegal immigration should represent a worldwide overview, I think. These sections on other countries were generally well sourced and neutral. The editor who deleted them wrote in the edit-summary that they were not notable, but I disagree and think that's at least worthy of discussion.

• Much of the information about causes and methods of illegal immigration, though that information was well sourced and neutral. No explanation was offered for this deletion.

• Much of the text that was added is incoherent. Here's the lead section, for example, in its entirety:

"Illegal Immigration from a global perspective in highly industrial countries like; the Americas, Continental Europe, and North, South, and East Asian countries are considered to be the same definition, in general terms, but all countries have specifics on what defines a citizen as in a legal citizen, recognized by a lawful central authority such as; a National Government or Union."

That doesn't make a lot of sense; it certainly doesn't tell me what illegal immigration is, which is what a lead section should do.

• The new version of the article makes several major unsourced claims, for example:

• "Those immigrants who deliberately enter an highly industrialized country without going through the proper and necessary process to becoming a recognized citizen in that country; it has been observed in observational studies that these types of immigrants typically are granting more economic opportunity than immigrants who were granted citizenship."

If there's a study to cite, it should be cited, if not, this information probably shoudn't be in the article. The grammar needs a cleanup here, too.

Hoping we can discuss ways to improve the article. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with a complete reversion. It is not appropriate to remove over 70,000 kb of information, including over 100 references, on a fairly high profile article, with no discussion. Dawn Bard, your concerns are completely accurate. Dana boomer (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the sources that contributors provided for the other countries, and there overwhelming foreign web sites that is to be challenged by WP: Verified and Notability. Most of the countries that were present in the Article before I edited out were not expicitly talking about illegal immigration within that country as a controversial or important issue. They were simply just citing close to decade old news about a minor event that just happens to be in relation to illegal immigration. I'm totally open to bringing these back but only if there were a notable concern and notable information that is in strong relation with illegal immigration. The only country within the Article is the United States in which it is an important manner, and is notable across the world. The "Basic of Understand" under the Causes of Illegal Immigration is not original research, it's just revised from the previous causes of illegal immigration that I found on the Article before I contributed. The content within it is purely practical. The lead is necessary compared to the other lead which was entirely from the viewpoint in the United States, the Article "Illegal Immigration" is suppose to be of a worldview consisting of all countries, and by the data it is most likely going to be among high industrial countries. American Patriot J (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the discussion. I still disagree with your changes, and I am a bit confused by what you are saying here. When you refer to "overwhelming foreign sites that is to be challenged by WP: Verified and Notability", do you mean non-American websites? Non-American sites are not considered inherently unverifiable or non-notable on Wikipedia. Also it doesn't matter if the information is a decade old - this is not meant to be a news article or to address current events exclusively. I'm not challenging the fact that the USA should be in the article, it should clearly be in the article, but I don't understand why it should be the only country referenced in an article about illegal immigration in general. As I said above, there is already an article on Illegal immigration to the United States, so this article should be more broad.

In spite of your explanation, I'm still not sure why you changed the lead section. The previous lead was not USA-specific, here it is:

"Illegal immigration is the migration into a country/state in violation of the immigration laws and sovereignty of that country/state. Illegal immigration raises many political, economic and social issues and has become a source of major controversy in developed countries and the more successful developing countries.

In 2010, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimated that 25.5 to 32.1 million people (or 10%–15%) of the world's total 214 million international immigrants are illegal immigrants, though the IOM notes that it is difficult to make accurate estimates."

It specifically mentions worldwide migration in the second sentence, and the first sentence is a neutral, non-country-specific definition of illegal immigration.

I still don't understand why you felt all of the information about the problems with and methods of illegal immigration, and most of the information about the causes of illegal immigration, needed to be deleted without discussion. It seemed sourced and neutral, and if it maybe needed improvement, that doesn't mean it needed to be deleted. Also, I notice that you deleted the contents of this talk page before I posted my initial comment, and I strongly suggest you restore them, or create an archive for them. We aren't supposed to delete other users' comments from talk pages, except to archive them. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I restored the deleted comments, and struck the section of my comment that dealt with the issue. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And I reverted the edits to the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you even check the sources by actually clicking them before I contributed? Most of them were foreign-language sites, literally. The lead that was present before my contributions were not addressing the actual definition of it; it was just addressing political rhetoric or discussions surrounding it.American Patriot J (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

American Patriot J, please quit removing large amounts of information from the page. You have been shown that your edits are controversial - therefore, discuss them before making more. It doesn't matter if sources are in other languages - those are fine, as long as they are reliable. English sources are not required by Wikipedia's sourcing standards. If sources are unreliable, the next step is to try to find reliable sources for the information, not just remove it wholesale. The information on the US may need to be trimmed but, again, not just removed wholesale, and completely removing all of the information on other countries (as you did in your first set of edits) is completely the opposite of making the article have a broader worldview. The way to improve the article is through improving sourcing and coverage, not removing over 70,000 kb of information and over 100 references. Dana boomer (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia's barrier

The reason of building the Saudi-Iraq barrier isn't the control of immigration but to prevent the militias from moving freely to and from Saudi Arabia and " to protect itself against Saudi insurgents returning from Iraq." , so I think it it shouldn't be mentioned in this article.

see http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/iraq/article1994220.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdurra7man (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

New Lede

Reacting to 'Lede too short', I have redrafted it to cover the main points more comprehensively, which it needed.

As for the length, you may note that this article is mostly an index of individual countries, and their separate experiences of illegal immigration. That section is clearly not suitable for summarising. I feel that the rest of the article is suitably summarised in my new lede. If nobody objects in the next few days, I trust I may delete the 'Lede too short' banner. Valetude (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Valetude (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Illegalized immigration

Not sufficient material for stand alone article. POV fork. GregJackP Boomer! 06:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, POV fork. -- Heptor _talk 21:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The proper action is to delete the POV fork, not to merge it with the article. -- Heptor _talk 22:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Heptor: just delete the POV fork. Plazak (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. GregJackP Boomer! 14:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources

These sources (links) 72 takes you to a cooking recipe, and the second one 73 doesn't exists. Greek police are unable to work with their counterparts in Turkey because the Turkish army is responsible for their border.[72] Recently, 14 illegal migrants drowned because of Turkish traffickers who sent them into the sea, telling them to slice the dinghies once they reach Greek waters.[73] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.34.56.247 (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the first as {{deadlink}}; the second one works for me, though the Daily Mail is a poor source to use. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)