Talk:Opposition to immigration

Determinants of opposition to immigration

"higher levels of education lead to a more positive reported attitude toward immigrants" is simply wrong if you look at the article, since it implies a causality. But the source doens't neccessarily imply that higher levels of education cause a more positive reported attitude, but instead that people with higher education places people in situations where they suffer less from the negative consequences of immigration, therefore they have a more positive attitude towards immigrants. The quote from the noted source that proves it is the following: "We find that higher levels of education place individuals in occupations that are less exposed to the negative effects of migration, although not in sectors/occupations where the share of migrants is necessarily smaller, suggesting that migrants and low-educated natives may be complementary rather than substitutes in the labour market.". I'm changing the text slightly to a more neutral POV. (31.03.2016, 17:09) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.189.182 (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I left the original quote intact (quotes should be exact or scrapped) but added context from the study for why the educated may differ in attitudes. The authors talk about a lack of economic competition, a greater aversion to discrimination and greater belief in positive effects of immigration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for changin. But isn't the original quote a big misleading? Since the study cannot determine causation, wouldn't a quote be more appropriate that talks about correlation instead of causation? It could theoretically also be that a more positive attitude towards immigrants leads to higher education (okay, that's a bit silly I guess) or that both have a common cause, namely that living a more protected life with richer parents leads to both a higher level of education and a more positive attitude towards immigrants. Maybe the quote should entirely be removed and/or be replaced by a better quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.189.182 (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The study uses a strategy to get around that problem and determine causality. It's in first half of the research design section of the paper. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Horrible Article

Chock full of weasel words, POV, and severely lacking in citations. The entire article should either be rewritten or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.209.239 (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Alcides (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I Agree!

that's an unhelpful comment. The article sets out the main arguments pro and con. That makes it neutral or NPOV = balanced. Rjensen (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

- This is an absolutely horrible article. Mass immigration to Europe is slowly resulting in the destruction of the European peoples - they are becoming minorities in their own homelands and eventually will cease to exist. 40,000 years of history gone. As this is the most significant migration of people in human history, transforming Europe into another brown continent, and this article should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.80.195 (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this article would be a good example of how incredibly inaccurate Wikipedia can be. I removed two paragraphs about immigration and crime that were full of misinformation, but this whole article should really be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.75.146 (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 #negativeperson101

Concur. Whoever wrote this can't distinguish illegal immigration from legal immigration -- in my experience, this is typical of the hard left. Unless one can distinguish between these terms, any discussion is pointless. CsikosLo (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Nativism

Both this article and the Nativism (politics) article use the term, "first-generation immigrants". I'm going to have to take issue with this term as hopelessly POV. Is there any other kind of immigrant? This term seems like a leftist, identity politics based term that implies that "we are all immigrants" (and therefore all members of some minority group deserving of special benefits rather than members of the majority), which as we all know is complete nonsense. If you were born in the country you live in, you are by definition not an immigrant. There are no "second-generation" immigrants - the very conecpt is an oxymoron. I'm going to have to object to the use of this term in any article and in any context. Puppy Mill 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

'First-generation' is common usage in the United States, to describe those who were born outside the US and migrated there. Other countries may have different terminology. The only use of the term here is in reference to nativism - this article was split off from the Nativism article. (The term 'second-generation immigrant' is not used in this article). The population of the United States is composed largely of immigrant groups, that is why there is a specific term 'nativism'.Paul111 11:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

POV United States

The Argument and Counter-argument section seems biased because it mainly applies to immigration in the United States. It would be one thing if it were put in a counter US argument, but it's in the main article here. What about Europe or Asia? They are far more powerful as a whole compared to the USA. The general argument and counter-argument section needs to also be inclusive of Europe and Asia. Why is everything on Wikipedia America-centred? 206.113.132.130 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL @ "America-centered". Don't worry, though, I fixed things on this article.Qwenton (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

allrite good job: —Preceding unsigned comment added by DubO777 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Alcides (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Missing citations and precisions.

Counter arguments.

I do not see any reason to have a counter opinion part in this entry. 82.128.132.130 (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to have a counter opinion party in this entry. Another entry can be made for proponents of immigration, but this part comes across as defensive, dismissive and not particularly neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.207.16 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I don't see why the counter arguments are written as "proponents cite" while "opponents say" for the arguments. this is written like a POV debunk. though such naive writing can be seen in many articles. 79.176.49.28 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel this should be revisited. If you look at the pages for counter opinions, each of them has a "criticisms" section associated with them. It seems strange to go to lengths to show both sides on an argument on one set of pages, but leave other pages only showing one side. Ultimately there should be some consistency in the editing policy, so we either need to come down on one side or another and then edit appropriately. Remove all of the counter opinions from articles, or allow counter opinions on all articles? 020JLC (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Scare quotes

"the argument that immigrants "steal jobs" always overlooks the fact that the jobs being "taken" are typically menial and/or low paying positions which "natives" generally do not wish to perform, creating a demand for labour which is met by immigrants. Due to a lack of cheap labor, industries would be forced to raise prices, which may put an economic burden on the public. Some industries would be forced to relocate overseas."

I'm removing all the scare quotes, except those surrounding "steal jobs" since it is a colloquial expression.

indeed , this is weasel terminology , where do they steal job? why is immigration a viable sure counter to outsourcing? why should immigrants work for less or stay ? who benefits from the cheap labour and who looses? does subsidizing the cheap labour costs the same anyway? 79.176.49.28 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC) also note that your removal was restored by someone .. such cases 79.176.49.28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC).

Orphaned references in Opposition to immigration

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Opposition to immigration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ssb":

• From Immigration to Norway: "Innvandrere fra 216 land". Statistics Norway. 29 April 2010.
• From Progress Party (Norway): "Kommunestyre- og fylkestingsvalget 2007" (in Norwegian). Statistics Norway. Retrieved 6 December 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion on anti-immigrant sentiment in contemporary Europe

Article is Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe from the late 2000s, deletion discussion here.--Sum (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit made to the Japan section

I've made referance with regard to the Japan section. While their has been an increase of racism toward foreigners in Japan including a push for new immigration control there also has been a push for more immigration due to the aging population and faultering economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Great neutral article...

"Maintaining an original ethnic structure, government, and overall citizenship, is the base argument of all opposition to immigration."

Totally neutral, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.20 (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Biased, unencylopedic and racist remarks in Europe section

Racism is the belief that some races are more worth or capable than others and that the human kind is divided into such higher and lower races. Opposition to immigration in Europe don't have such charactreistics and has more to do with wanting the land of their forfathers to belong to their children, and this is right and moraly higher than to say otherwise because their forfathers want to give it to them and it is their blood and sweat that has made it, the fear of the consequenses of immigration in national and personal manners (racism toward them, cooperation of groups etc.), economics and lose of welfair trough the disruption of peace and trough crime. I am an European and have never heard any racist remarcs from parties that don't want immigration. But I do have to say that the people who are pro immigration tend to value their etnich European population less than others, and is therefore closer to having a racist ideology.

I do therefore think that we should romove the term nationalist and racism in general from this article. And exchange them fore more netral terms. Rather than use the propaganda apartus of different people who want some end. This reference http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8639097.stm, does even not come close to a quality reference and does not say much of what he have written. I think we should remove it. Olehal09 (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You really do have an odd way of redefining those who are less racist as being more racist! ("But I do have to say that the people who are pro immigration tend to value their etnich European population less than others, and is therefore closer to having a racist ideology.") Your heading is even wrong. It should end with "anti-racist remarks in Europe section". Do you see pro-racist remarks in the article?

As to your proposal to remove properly sourced content which doesn't even mention racism (by word), here it is:

• In the UK the British National Party have made opposition to immigration one of their central policies.
• Source: BNP call for end to immigration from Muslim nations BBC News, 23 April 2010]

Our statement is an accurate summary of the source. No problem here.

Opposition to immigration has many reasons, and in some cases it is racism. Not everyone who opposes immigration is a racist, but some are. We have sources which discuss those people, so don't remove it.

I get the strong feeling that you are only here to promote an agenda. You are definitely not here to build an encyclopedia. You don't like the normal opposition to racism, and you don't see that your opposition is itself racist, and now you're bringing your agenda here by seeking to delete properly sourced content. You're not following our policies and guidelines. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Trough facts and easy logic you can clearly se that opposition to immigration is both moral and sound, and does not have anything to do with racism. Since it is the tough that humanity is divided into higher and lower races. To oppose the view of the European anti-immigration view is often based on the tough that Europeans are less worth than others, and are not allowed to do what they think is right, what they value (culture etc.), the hinerhatican of their fathers and mothers sweat and blood, and to protect their national and personal welfare, is nearly the defnition of the above stated. Racist in my eyes. And I belive that many have spoken of this before. I don't oppose anti-racism. I oppose misused anti-racism, that's a fact. I don't think (and I have never read or heard of anyone) that many who oppose immigration base it on the belife that some races are more valuable than others, and that it is higher and lower races.

When it comes to the source I think it is self evident that this article I've linked to don't support what is written. Neither is it neccesary to use biased wording like nationalism or racism. An encyclopedia shall contain netral facts, and it don't paint a picture like that from this text. It seem more like a work to persvade the reader for some end. Olehal09 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Olehal09, before I reply, I'd like to make sure I understand you, because you wrote a few misspellings. What do you mean by "Trough" (Truth or Through?), "tough" (truth?), and "hinerhatican"? Please explain and then let's correct what you wrote so it makes more sense in English. When that is done, I'll reply to you. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I just meant that the facts and logic tells us. With other words through. Thought and inheritance. Olehal09 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Olehal09, maybe you didn't understand my request. I specifically asked for the meaning of those misspelled words. Please answer that question, then I'll reply. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

With "trough" I meant through. You derive a conclution from facts or logic. With tough I meant thought, like you have been thinking in the past. I thought you were at school yesterday. With hinherhatican, I meant inheritance. You got an inheritance from your unmarried aunt. I really should read through my text before I post them. I'm sorry and I also apologise for my late reply.

"Opposition to immigration is both moral and sound, most people would conclude this if they've thought about it, and does not have anything to do with racism. Since this is the thought that humanity is divided into higher and lower races. To not allowe people to oppose immigration do seem to me that the people are less worth than others, and are not allowed to do what they think is right. To perserve what they value (culture etc.), to give the inheritance of their fathers and mothers sweat and blood to their children, and to protect their national and personal welfare. I think it nearly is the defnition of the above stated. Racist in my eyes. And I belive that many have spoken of this before. I don't oppose anti-racism. I oppose misused anti-racism. I don't think (and I have never read or heard of anyone) who oppose immigration because they believe some races are more valuable than others, and they shouldn't let them into their countries because of that." Olehal09 (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You have expressed your opinion on immigration several times now, but that is irrelevant to content creation here, so be careful not to violate our talk page guidelines by using this page as a soapbox for your opinions. Most people who have done what you have been doing would have already been blocked, so don't do it anymore. We are interested in what sources say.

The dispute above is regarding your proposal to remove properly sourced content which doesn't even mention racism (by word), here it is:

• Our content: "In the UK the British National Party have made opposition to immigration one of their central policies."
• The source: BNP call for end to immigration from Muslim nations BBC News, 23 April 2010]

Our statement is a short and accurate statement about what the source says. We don't mention whether the BNP is racist, or if that is their motivation. We just state their opposition, and that's what the source says. I don't see any problem.

What is your objection to that source? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This has little to do with my opinion on immigration, but has to do with the articles view on opposition to immigration. With the comment above I just tried to make you and others think, and that we maybe should search for different sources and points of view.

I think the article has been edited since I made my original comment. The sentence I think should be editied is this one: "Opposition to high levels of legal immigration is associated with many right-wing groups in the EU. ... Expression of these views is often considered racist and sometimes even a criminal offense under anti-discrimination statutes, and there are frequent calls for stiffer sentences for xenophobia in many European countries and by the European Union" Source: Christina Schori Liang, ed. Europe for the Europeans (2007)

First of all, how is Christina Schori Liang a credible source? Shoudn't we have a source for her point of view? I'm very certain that to oppose high level of leagal immigration is not against the law in any European or EU countries. Do she really know why these people are against high levels of leagal immigration? Why does she use the word racism? This was one of the reasons I wrote my point of view above, and I'll try to find sources to why some of the more prominent people who oppose immigration think what they do. Olehal09 (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

We follow and document what reliable sources say. This documents one POV, and it's certainly a legitimate one. She's right. Other POV exist, and if you can find reliable sources, we might be able to use them. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Then who decides what documents are legitimate or not? Does some political movements have the monopoly on truth? Olehal09 (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

PETA is anti-immigration?

Probably. But it is the use of the word 'environmental' that concerns me. There must be a better word for concerns involving logistics, infrastructure, land use, etc. That the word 'environmental' has been linked to the article environmentalism only points out the inappropriateness. "I'm sorry Mr. Chinaman, but the needs of the rosy-footed, golden-winged Appalachian hover bunny means we can't accept you! (Har-har!)" Really? Can we find another word that doesn't have current inappropriately wide-ranging associations? As it is, it's like using 'air-breathing' instead of 'human'. Oooo, that'd be something PETA would like. Shenme (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Fear of" x

The list of arguments in opposition to immigration all are titled "fear of". Given the negative connotations that the word "fear" has, this is an example of this article having a non-neutral POV. I will change these headings to more neutral terms that reflect their beliefs about immigration, not how their beliefs are perceived by certain outside observers. 73.20.33.105 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree, but as most/all of the arguments in this section are nonsensical and without sources I think having 'fear of' added takes away some power from the nonsense. Maybe it would be better to improve the content of the article first before dealing with such rather petty issues. Michtrich (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Disease material

This is an article about opposition to immigration, references to support statements on disease as a 'fear' need to reference that opposition not just be general medical statements that disease can be transferred by travellers of any type. The next was OR and read as if such opposition was based on medical facts which is not acceptable ----Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snowded: Indeed! However such references were included. The thing is that I didn't make clear which references were meant to verify that immigrants (and cross-border movements in general) can bring infectious diseases and which were meant to verify that this is a point of opponents of immigration. I restored the sections and changed them a bit. I also added a few more refs. It was not OR but meets WP:RS. Please do check all refs behind a statement as I tend to rather add too many than too few. I wondered if I should change the sentence to "which some perceive as a significant threat and some not." but decided against it as "some" already implies that many don't. However you could add it or make a relevant suggestion here. I changed it to "some perceive as a threat of significance" to make that a bit clearer.

Furthermore you also reverted the sourced section "Welfare costs" for no reason. Welfare costs are a major talking point of opponents of immigration and info on that definitely should be featured here.

Note that even if you oppose opposition to immigration it can be in your interest to have this article properly inform upon opponents' arguments.

Other than that I strongly agree with User:Apollo The Logician in that it's you who's violating WP:NPOV by removing this content.

Please know that we can't remove content just because we don't like it or disagree with it or alike. And this content is sourced and really needs to be in the article.

If you still have an issue please explain here which exact part you're referring to and why you'd think that would violate NPOV or OR.

--Fixuture (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the majority of the material as OR. If you don't accept that then argue the case here don't reinstate it ----Snowded ^TALK 23:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Snowded: Alright, I do have some issues with it:

• As of right now it says: "Others point out that this alleged threat is a myth". However that statement is false or at least misleading and not sourced. The source only calls the conception of "diseased hordes of immigrants" and "germ invasion" myths. This part needs to be changed to properly reflect what (and with what) opponents of this argument argue.
• You also removed this part:

Immigrants (and cross-border movements in general) can bring infectious diseases uncommon to the native population from their home countries

I do think that this info is essential to the section. And it meets WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. It's an established fact that people coming from countries with differing medical systems, medical practices, health standards, environments and endemic diseases can import uncommon infectious diseases. It's not me saying so but the sources (and there are more saying so out there). And I'm pretty certain that this info matters here. However we could discuss how it / what content should be added there. For instance it could be put into context by also stating that the perceived threat is often gravely overestimated and that while (depending on the scale of immigration and various other factors) it might strain a country's medical system a bit and be somewhat problematic it doesn't cause whole epidemics in (modern) societies. Also the issue of immigration and diseases has a whole history and I think info on it should be added there as well − potential sources for that include: [1], [2], [3], [4].

To also come back to the earlier point: it should be relativised.

I know that demagogues are using this argument with many trying to induce fear but this just makes it more important that we a) do feature info on this here b) do so in a neutral, unbiased way. As stated earlier even if you're against any form of opposition to immigration it's also in your interest to have the arguments of opponents mapped out in a neutral and due way so that a) people for open immigration are prepared for and can learn about their opponents' points and can argue objectively and effectively based upon the actual matters etc b) people opposing immigration regard Wikipedia as a neutral source of uncensored information and learn about the relativity of their point.

• You also removed this part of the "Welfare costs" section:

Various factors influence the impact of immigrants to a nation's public coffers and their use of welfare. While immigrants can improve a state's welfare system by for example counteracting trends of aging populations a study study found that the net impact of immigrants on the welfare system in Germany was negative in 1997 with only immigrants having lived in Germany for more than 25 years contributing more to the welfare system than drawing out and George Borjas, economics professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government states that "the more unskilled the immigrant, the more likely the immigrant will be a fiscal burden".

I'd like to reinsert this content. The section is pretty short and this content is useful there. However it could be expanded − including potentially a few more examples of why it could be useful for a country's welfare system. But here I'd hope for some more participants in the discussion...

--Fixuture (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

We have noted, with references, the assertions of those who oppose immigration. Providing text that selects references that appear to support that position, where the references are independent of the subject matter is original research. Saying that something is established fact is one thing, linking that to an unconnected (by the reference) political stance is synthesis ----Snowded ^TALK 22:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

---

References

Medical Journal of Zambia, some rubbish article by MA students, etc. - what is going on here?

Text keeps getting re-added that cites an article in the "Medical Journal of Zambia", an article in the "International Journal of Science and Research" by MA students, and other rubbish publications as evidence that highly skilled emigration hurts the sending countries. The notion of a "brain drain" is a myth in the econ literature, as substantiated by three experts on migration and development, and literally dozens of studies (if you want more, I can add them). Please remove this fringe BS, it's doing a disservice to Wikipedia and misleading readers. It's fine to say "some opponents claim that emigration harms the sending countries" (true) but not to state as fact that emigration does harm the sending countries (false).

This is not the only content in this Wikipedia article that cites bottom-of-the-barrel sources. The article is a mess for the most part. I encourage editors to seriously sift through the content here and fix these problems. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

rubbish? bottom-of-the-barrel?? says who? answer: No scholar says that. People who demand good RS should do a little research before they reject scholarly journals without ever looking at them--indeed without noticing that Medical Journal of Zambia has its own Wikipedia article here. Google scholar lists over 1200 scholarly articles published in or referencing Medical Journal of Zambia with over 100 cites in 2016-17. see the list at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="Medical+Journal+of+Zambia"&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C27 The same google search reports over 1550 scholarly journal references to "Brain drain" already published in 2017. plus another 4000 published in 2016--that's a lot of published science about what one anonymous editor believes to be a myth. Wiki NPOV rules require both sides, please. Rjensen (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you care so deeply about Medical Journal of Zambia, please let me know what its impact factor is. Also, (1) experts literally call "brain drain" a myth (2) every study that examines human capital flight or emigration uses the term, if only to say it's a myth or that it's good for the sending countries. Wiki policy is not to "require both sides" when one side is the academic community and the other side is BS articles in non-notable publications - that's false equivalance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans' revert

So User:Snooganssnoogans reverted my changes saying "there is absolutely no reason why this article should randomly recite data from Sweden and Germany, UNDUE. i removed the fringe brain drain text (garbage publications) out of sync with all quality research on the topic."

I strongly contest this revert and wish to restore it, because:

• It does not "randomly recite data from Sweden and Germany" but adds very relevant, non-random information on data which shows (that there can be/has been) a link between immigration and crime despite all the claims that this wouldn't be the case. It really needs to be included per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Leaving it out would be leaving out crucial information and biased.
• I do not consider the text on brain drain "fringe" and it has WP:RS. And there are many more sources that have written about the brain drain. Also you can't just decide on your own what is "fringe" and what isn't and what "garbage publications" are and what aren't. Nor is "being out of sync with all quality research on the topic" according to you a reason to remove this. For instance it could be the other way around.
  In addition from what I can see right now it seems those are only talking about "labor shortages" and not any other associated disadvantages. And emigration being 'beneficial' to the country origin doesn't imply that less emigration wouldn't be 'more beneficial' especially when considering that there are many kinds of emigration.
  • Some additional sources: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
• No rationale for the removal of Liberal bias in academia in the see alsos has been given.
• The subsections structure the large text and make them easier to read which is imo of special importance in the "Immigration and crime" section where imo (at least almost) UNDUE length is dedicated to "how X affects opposition to immigration" in the context of crime rather than the point itself.

I'd be ok with leaving the info on the "Dillingham Commission" up even though I'd consider it a relatively random point of historic reference of which there are many.

--Fixuture (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• The brain drain rubbish is covered in the talk section above. You then cite two studies (5, 6) by Michel Beine, Fréderic Docquier, Hillel Rapoport (great scholars) as evidence of a brain drain when they in fact FIND NET GAINS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES and a nuanced picture of losses and gains (as with any issue). #7 is a 1998 working paper that only shows that skilled individuals emigrate in greater numbers (that's what the paper characterizes as a brain drain), not that emigration causes net losses in human capital or other adverse effects. #8 is a 15-year-old one-page opinion piece - doesn't cite any research of note on the issue. As for #9 and #10, I've never heard of "International Economic Review" and "Finance and Development" and I'm not going to bother seeing what their flaws are. Do you seriously just cite "something" when you need to substantiate a claim?

• There is zero reason to include a bunch of crime-immigration data from Sweden and Germany, as opposed to countries where there is no relationship between crime and immigration. The section already covers crime rates worldwide (mixed findings).

• This article is about "opposition to immigration". If a perceived relationship between crime and immigration informs "opposition to immigration", that's about as pertinent as it gets. Sounds as if you just want this article to be short-hand resource of arguments for opponents of immigrants.

• I cannot understand the reason why Liberal bias in academia has been added to this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Opposition to 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805204302/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/20050330-9999-lz1e30navar.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/20050330-9999-lz1e30navar.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Section copyright violation.

Text citing this source needs to be reworded: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/economic-and-cultural-drivers-of-immigrant-support-worldwide/02BBCF09B063FCD0C252B6D78E748DE8. Ping Diannaa see this edit, perhaps you can remove the offending versions? AadaamS (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It's in quotation marks, so no. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/scotlands-dirty-little-secret-were-as-anti-immigration-as-england/; https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/11/07/canadian-attitudes-towards-immigration-hardening-poll-suggests.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Unbalanced - September 2019

There's a Template:Unbalanced dated September 2019 - there does not seem to be a discussion dated September 2019. What are the outstanding issues? A Thousand Words (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Over population or population expansion is a major driver for anti-immigration feeling.

Certainly in the UK 73% believe the UK is over populated. How has this, perhaps the most important motivation for anti-immigration sentiment, been left out?

Even when there is no housing problem people often hate the idea of expansion of cities, new building of sky scrapers and change.

Changes to wording

Should this article use the terms 'blacks' or 'gypsies', I understand that it is accurate to the time, but in this modern era, shouldnt we be using words like 'african american' and 'romani' Headisoff (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Political ideology or political position?

In the opening opposition to immigration is classified as a political ideology. However, I don't see a source on this page that explicitly states as such. Opposition to immigration appears more of a political position to me, rather than a political ideology. Can anyone provide a reliable WP:SYNTH complying source that explicitly calls it one of these two? Helper201 (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)