Misplaced Pages

Talk:Illegal immigration

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 168.12.253.66 (talk) at 13:57, 15 October 2013 (→Requested move: cm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:57, 15 October 2013 by 168.12.253.66 (talk) (→Requested move: cm)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Illegal immigration article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

WikiProject iconInternational relations C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEconomics C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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?

Undocumented Immigration

I'm wondering if this should change it's language focusing on the derogatory term "illegal" to a more neutral term like "undocumented" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.186.22 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Lets change it. Having a page about undocumented immigrants titled "illegal immigrants" is like having a page on African Americans and titling it "N*ggers" Its derogatory and unacceptable especially in 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.189.195 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but in many jurisdictions, "illegal" is still an accurate term, reflecting the criminal nature of unauthorized immigration to that jurisdiction. For example, unauthorized immigration to Mexico is a felony offense and therefore illegal. 24.165.15.189 (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The use of "illegal immigration" per se can be seen as less offensive than "illegal immigrant" or similar choice of words. It's problematic because it leads to the use of "illegal immigrant" instead of the appropriate term "undocumented immigrant. That is why i opt for the name of the article to be changed as well to undocumented immigration, a snippet can be added with "in some areas also referred to as "illegal immigration", but is starting to fall out of fashion due to the problems attribute "illegal" to a group of people, such as in the case of "illegal immigrants". 94.255.140.42 (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that "undocumented" is more of a liberally biased word then "illegal". "Undocumented" implies that there was an administrative mistake. There wasn't. We call heroin an "illegal drug" when it's here against the laws of our country, not an "undocumented drug." Why shouldn't the classification of immigrants be the same? Brainpen (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Undocumented is currently the terminology used, See the discussion. And undocumented implies that they don't have the correct documentation see french sans papiers. A drug can be illegal but not a human being, to call someone illegal shows dehumanizing language and that's why it's not used in governmental documentation apart for in direct quotes. DavidJakobsson (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I can give you a better analogy. Is it dehumanizing to call someone who robbed your house a robber? No, it's an accurate description of them. Just the same, someone who immigrates illegally is an illegal immigrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainpen (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
To Quote Malary Tenore from the New York Times. "But in referring in general terms to the issue of people living in the United States without legal papers, we do think the phrases “illegal immigrants” and “illegal immigration” are accurate, factual and as neutral as we can manage under the circumstances. It is, in fact, illegal to enter, live or work in this country without valid documents. Some people worry that we are labeling immigrants as “criminals” — but we’re not. “Illegal” is not a synonym for “criminal.” (One can even park “illegally,” though it’s not a criminal offense.)" 72.91.227.48 (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"Undocumented immigrant" is an activist neologism. What's next, undocumented drivers? Undocumented physicians? -- Heptor talk 21:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no, "undocumented immigrant" is neither an "activist neologism" nor a "liberally biased word." There are two compelling reasons why it is preferable to "illegal alien." First, under legal definitions, refugees and bona fide asylum seekers, crossing a border without papers, are not entering "illegally." So the terminology that all people entering a country without papers are entering "illegally" and that such migration is "illegal immigration" is factually incorrect. Under the Geneva Convention, which is the legal standard, a refugee is not an illegal immigrant, but you'd never know it from the media that regularly ignore international law. And Misplaced Pages, as an expert source, should not ignore international law either in its terminology. Also, people who enter with visas, which is to say legally, and then overstay their visas, are also not "illegal immigrants" since they entered legally but later remain unlawfully or without proper visas, but their act of immigration was not "illegal." Second, and perhaps more important, Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect NPOV, and social scientists use the value-neutral (which is to say NPOV) term "irregular migration." So if we as Wikipedians want our encyclopedia to have respectability in schools and universities, we need to adopt the same NPOV language that real social scientists who study this topic use (and, in fact, some of us are actual social scientists). The term "illegal immigration" is POV pure and simple. Bruxism (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree the term "illegal..." is poor, at least outside the US (I don't know the legal position there). The European Commission uses the term "irregular" migration, which seems to cover it in a NPOV way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
PS: Note this report - "Under international law refugees fleeing persecution have a right to asylum...". They are not "illegal" immigrants. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2013 (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)

Recommend to Remove Racist Language

People are not "illegal" because they continue to breath air in a country without documentation while "looking foreign".

The language used in this article has the effect of altering how people vote in elections, which violates charity laws in the United States.

The article fails to mention that the term "illegal immigrant" only applies to people found guilty of a misdemeanor or felony in a court of law. You are "undocumented" if you lack documentation, not "illegal".

Example: People born outside the United States are not automatically categorized as criminals by US law. It is not a misdemeanor or felony to be born outside the US. It is not a misdemeanor or felony to lack documentation.

Only a judge and jury can determine if someone is "illegal" by establishing guilt involving a felony or misdemeanor in a court of law.

Lacking immigration documentation or a birth certificate is not a felony or misdemeanor in the US.

Immigration law is supposed to comply with international treaties, so the same is true for most other countries. That is why it is unconstitutional for individual states to control US immigration.

"Illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are being used in this article to describe foreign citizens that are not criminals. This derogatory and racist language is an attempt to alter voting patterns of people that lack experience regarding immigration and employment. It is a violation of federal tax law for a US charitable institution to engage in political activity. The terms "illegal immigration" cannot be used in Misplaced Pages to describe an entire class of people that have not engaged in any misdemeanor or felony activity. "Encyclopedic" content is intended for students that will eventually vote. The use of "illegal" to describe a race or nationality is political activism intended to alter election outcomes. Taxes could be owed starting on the date when charity status was first compromised with that kind of language.

The correct word used to describe a person that lacks documentation is "undocumented". The correct non-racist terminology is "undocumented tourist" for visitors with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born worker" when the employer failed to pay the documentation fee for a foreign born worker, "undocumented foreign born student" for exchange students with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born resident" for people living in the US with an expired visa, etc.

The term "illegal immigrant" is only applicable to foreign born citizens found guilty of a crime, but the term is being used in this article to describe people that "look foreign" and lack documentation.

Many people born before 1959 in Hawaii and Alaska are undocumented because they cannot obtain a valid US birth certificate. Most people born before 1940 in places like Arizona and Oklahoma are undocumented because valid US birth certificate were not issued. Descendants of over 1 million US citizens deported to Mexico in the 1930s are also US citizens. All are undocumented. None of those people are "illegal", but the article implies that they are all criminals.

"Illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" would only be acceptable in a quote:

Arizona’s Conservative White Legislators: Illiterate and Racist on Immigration
SB 1070 is at best an inflammatory law and will surely come to serve as a rationale to justify violent attacks by the misguided against persons who appear to “look illegal.” ... Indeed, it is this ecology of fear that led to the murder of a young legal Ecuadorian immigrant in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn on December 7, 2008. The perpetrators of this crime were white youth who, like those convicted last month on Long Island for a similar crime, were out “Beaner hopping” or hunting for “illegal aliens.”

The difficulty is that the language used in this article is being used to encourage genocidal behavior, which obviously makes Misplaced Pages a political organization.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

The text of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

"Undocumented foreign born worker", "undocumented foreign born students", and "undocumented foreign born residents" become documented by obtaining documentation.

Non-academic examples of how the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" communicate racism help to illustrate how this article compromises the intellectual integrity and charity status of Misplaced Pages.

Remember:

Regards, nanoatzin (talk).

Actually they are criminals in fact seeing their violating the human right of national soveregnty to be honest calling undocumented immigrants is highly insulting to the people whose rights theyre violating it is a serious crime the accusations of racism are unfounded sence its based on what crimes were commited and not on race i recommend you drop your childish immaturity or leave wikipedia 98.250.4.115 (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you confuse, "citizenship rights" with "human rights", national sovereignty is not a human right, on the other hand right of mobility is a human right. Arendt, Agamben etc, talks about the contradiction between these two concepts. The declaring of someone being illegal due to their lack of visa, shows lack of legal knowledge, both in international law and the declaration of human rights. I urge the title of this wiki entry to be changed immediately to a more acceptable term such as undocumented immigration, as the term "illegal immigration" has fallen out of common usage in most countries legal correspondence, due to the inaccuracy of the term. DavidJakobsson (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

How is it raciest to refer to someone in this, or any other country for that matter, illegally an "illegal immigrant"? Anybody of any race can be here illegally. Also, we need to remember that Misplaced Pages is a neutral source of information. Whether or not you think people should have whatever degree of mobility, all viewpoints should be expressed fairly. Brainpen (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Brainpen, to refer to a group of people in dehumanizing terms is very problematic and as such could be considered in colloquial terms as "racist". I would argue that the term is not racist as well, definitely not neutral though and very xenophobic. DavidJakobsson (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The term "illegal immigrant" is gradually being phased out for professional communications, with the Associated Press recently adopting a policy against it: The Los Angeles Times has also discouraged the term and the New York Times is said to be on the verge of following suit. Given these facts, it seems appropriate for Misplaced Pages to keep pace with standards of professional communications. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. Civis mundi sum (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing dehumanizing or racist about calling people criminals. LA Times is still calling them "illegal immigrants", they did however stop calling them "aliens". http://www.latimes.com/news/local/readers-rep/la-me-rr-la-times-guidelines-immigration-20130501,0,5876110.story Heptor talk 22:25, 4 September 2013 (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. 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. — 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)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Illegal immigration be renamed and moved to Irregular immigration.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Illegal immigration → Irregular immigration – The article covers undocumented or irregular migration, which is not necessarily illegal. Irregular immigration is a term used by the European Commission here - it is undocumented but not necessarily illegal; indeed under international law everyone has a right of asylum. The term "undocumented immigration" is used in the US and elsewhere, for example here to cover the same concept. It is factually wrong and discriminatory to classify the process of undocumented or irregular migration as necessarily "illegal". Whether or not it is true in the US (for which there is a separate article, Illegal immigration to the United States), is irrelevant; this is a global encyclopedia, and the article takes a global perspective. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose The articles does clearly relate to the topic of illegal immigration, changing the title to Irregular immigration certainly seems like a change is scope. The "global perspective" doesn't make sense given the sub articles to this one are "Illegal immigration to X country" and is employed as a naming format for almost 40 articles geographical related articles.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that much of what is discussed in this article is not "illegal immigration" - it deals with the process of migration before its legality can be considered. The migrants drowned in the Mediterranean recently were not acting illegally - they never got to the point where the legality or otherwise of their actions could be considered. But the motivations and actions of such groups still need to be the subject of an article. "Irregular immigration" was merged into this article in the past. It needs to be decoupled from this article, or this article renamed, so that it can be addressed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it could even be decoupled because the term Irregular immigration doesn't even show in the article. If you want to create an article and their is source material to support go ahead and do so, but a move request isn't appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
So, there's a Human migration article which says a little about motives and purposes, and perhaps is the proper place for as much detail on this topic as would be encyclopdically appropriate. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a somewhat historical and theoretical article, which is not what I mean. There is a need for an article, specifically, on Irregular immigration to Europe (or Irregular immigration to the European Union). That article should have a parent article - which should be this article. But, it can't be this article, because this article, by its title, only covers a subset of irregular immigration - that is, immigration which has been deemed illegal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I question that this niche is as large as you seem to think it is. For sure, there could probably be 100 articles worth of content on immigration to europe alone, but "legal yet irregular" immigration seems a very, very small subset that can just go in Immigration to Europe & child articles for now. (And if it's really so important, spin off a new article specifically for this legal-but-irregular area, no need to change the scope of this one.) SnowFire (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course - but "Illegal immigration" and "irregular immigration" are not the same thing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason to refrain from covering motivational questions in more detail in the Human migration article. For the effects of EU upon national immigration law, I suggest starting with a new section of Immigration law, with links from appropriate EU articles as well as this one. Perhaps that or another section of the law article should explore more deeply the distinctions among "illegal", "irregular", "undocumented" and other notions that ought to be decoupled. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Possibly, but my knowledge of international law falls well short of being able to take on that task. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, per User:Labattblueboy. Heptor talk 22:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Labattblueboy and User:SnowFire. The article's header paragraph also makes it clear this article is intended to cover illegal immigration. If there's something outside the scope, I'd suggest that you change it instead. --Article editor (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest editorial clarity as a remedy for the issues mentioned in the nomination. This article should be about that sort of immigration that is illegal, the common name for which is "illegal immigration". If it covers some conduct that is not illegal, removing or splitting that content will remedy the issue. If the nominator's concern is that it's bad to call illegal conduct illegal, well, WP:NPOV does not support this argument. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
No: my point is that until the immigration is shown to be illegal by being tested in a court somewhere, it is not illegal. People migrating to another country in order to, for example, seek asylum, are not acting illegally. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
So a thief robbing people on the street commits no crime until the court says he does? That's not how we treat the subject at Robbery. It is not how we should treat the subject here. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/is-illegal-immigrant-the-right-description/
Categories: