Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States

This page is duplicate content and should be merged with the existing illegal immigration Wiki page

This "illegal immigration to the united states" page needs to be combined with the illegal immigration page that already exists at Wikipedia. By creating this second page about illegal immigration, Wikipedia is grabbing both the number one and number two spots on google for searches on illegal immigration. Hogging up search results like that is going to earn Wikipedia a very bad reputation with other organizations and websites competing to share information on topics. Wikipedia should have one page dealing with Illegal Immigration and this page about US Illegal immigration should be combined with the other page please.

I would just like to say in response to this, that Wikipedia should be spread out widely throughout the Internet. I feel that it is in no way hogging the spots on google searches--but in fact providing students with different options to follow up on more research. Wikipedia is great accessing tool for knowledge because it provides insight on a given topic through many different views. I feel that if it is combined with the other page, individuals would lose interest in reading the article thouroughly. (post by Zaslam72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

The article is not supposed to be duplicate content because it is supposed to cover 8 USC - Aliens and Nationality.

The existing article is mostly fiction.

The article should be removed from Wikipedia or heavily edited because the original intent of the article appears to have been to alter the outcome of elections in the United States.

Wikipedia is banned from posting content that would alter the outcome of an election because that is a violation of charity tax law.

This article is supposed to cover 8 USC Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY.

Regards, Nanoatzin (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Revision of Deportation Section

As part of a class assignment to contribute to a Wikipedia article, I will be revising and expanding the Deportation section of this article. I will focus specifically on including social and economic effects of deportation as well as some policies that have affected deportation of illegal immigrants in recent years. I will restructure the sub sections by creating economic effects, social effects, and policy subsections. I will also create a new sub section that focuses on criminal deportations as well as a sub section that includes deportation trends. In the policy section I wanted to focus closely on the Patriot Act and the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and how these two policies have affected deportations and why they were enacted in the first place. Under social effects I will cover those left behind in the US as a result of deportations especially children of illegal immigrants. Under Economic effects I will include information on the effects that deportations have on the economy. Under the sub section of criminal deportations I will discuss the practice of using criminal acts as grounds for deportation. In general I would like to include more scholarly sources since I noticed that several of the sources for this section are news articles. I would like to expand this section because I aim to obtain a more holistic overview of deportations and their effects and reasons. As far as sources I can foresee potential problems finding sources for some of the statistics on recent deportation trends. I can also see economic effects of deportations being an area of scarce sources and would appreciate any help with resources for that or any other aspects of my proposed contributions to this article.

Victoria.delgado (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but I'm wary of your proposal to significantly expand just one section of what's already a very long article, which seems like it could unbalance the article as a whole. Your proposed focus also covers a very narrow range of time (only the past fifteen years or so) instead of looking at the issue historically, and this article already appears very heavy in its focus on the past two decades. Perhaps the Patriot Act or Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act articles themselves would be a better place for a lengthy discussion of the issues they raise? Another option would to be create some sort of WP:SPINOFF article for Deportion of immigrants in the United States or something similar (on the model of Immigration detention in the United States); there you would have room to discuss the issues without the pressure of balancing an overall article. But you might consult with editors more specifically experienced in this area as to whether that would be a good idea. Khazar2 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll just add, and not for nothing, that I've seen this type of scenario unfold before. College student who has never edited Wikipedia before is given mission by professor or TA who has also never edited Wikipedia before. Mission is for grand expansion or rewrite of specific article that the student or professor wants to change, and copious original research is the likely result. It rarely ends well and in fact this is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Furthermore, generally, creating an account just to edit this article is strongly frowned upon, if not an outright violation of WP policy. I recommend you spend a few months editing other articles and familiarizing yourself with WP policy before undertaking this project, and even then, please seek guidance from others in doing so. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

2 articles related to this that need attention

Reverse immigration in the United States which is pretty dire, and Illegal immigrant population of the United States which needs updating or maybe just a redirect to this one as it is more or less a fork (and I couldn't find a link in it to this one, maybe I missed it). Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas

Shouldn't he be mentioned? Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Recommend to Remove Racist Language

It is not "illegal" for a foreign born citizen to breath air inside the US border when they lack documentation. That is not a felony or misdemeanor.

The title of this article requires it to cover 8 USC Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY, but the article advocates an unrelated political topic intended to influence voters.

Only a judge or jury can identify someone as an "illegal" by finding the individual guilty of a misdemeanor or felony in a court of law. Only an immigrant with a criminal record is "illegal" according to US law.

Any other use of the term "illegal" involves political activism intended to alter the outcome of an election. That violates US charity law.

The correct word used to describe a person that lacks documentation is "undocumented", not "illegal".

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

Federal tax law is very strict on the issue: A 501(c)(3) organization is absolutely forbidden to directly or indirectly participate in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Violation of this prohibition could lead the IRS to completely revoke an organization's tax-exempt status or impose excise taxes on the organization.

It is not a misdemeanor or felony to be born outside the US. It is not a misdemeanor or felony to lack documentation.

"Illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are being used in this article to describe Mexicans and other latinos 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 charitable institution to engage in political activity by using "encyclopedic content" intended to alter voting patterns of students. The terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" cannot be used in Wikipedia to describe people that have not engaged in any misdemeanor or felony activity without crossing that line. Taxes could be owed starting on the date when charity status was first compromised with that kind of language.

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.

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 non-political 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 kind of racist language used in this article is being used to encourage genocidal behavior.

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:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

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 Wikipedia.

• The anti-illegal immigrant agenda is about promoting xenophobia and nativism that has surfaced at various times in our history.
• Those who agree with Mr. Vargas say “illegal” should be banned because it suggests that “illegal immigrants” are criminals, which often isn’t true.
• Texas trooper in chopper shoots, kills 2 suspected illegal immigrants
• TEXAS ASKS FBI TO INVESTIGATE HELICOPTER SHOOTING
• Colorado Gas Station Caught Selling “Illegal Immigrant Hunting Permit” Sticker
• Gas Station Pulls Racist 'Illegal Immigrant Hunting Permit' Bumper Stickers
• Oops! You're racist.
• Taco Cid ... in Columbia, S.C., .. produced ... the T-shirt includes an image of a wooden trap with tacos used as bait and a caption that reads: “How to catch an illegal immigrant.”
• Charles Garcia created a stir among many conservatives recently when he defended and parroted allegations that using the term “illegal immigrant” is a racist slur.
• Mexican Restaurant Causes Commotion over “Racist T-shirt”
• Hundreds Protest NYU Republicans’ Racist “Illegal Immigrant” Hunt
• Immigrant tuition petition drive is all about bigotry

The following facts are missing from all articles that mention "illegal immigration", which corrupts Wikipedia by introducing bias that is inaccurate and misleading.

• Immigrant visa fees began at border crossings and harbors in 1920 to raise federal revenue.
• The fees for the most recent forms are found at Department of Homeland Security.
• US citizens won't take certain jobs that are usually done by foreign workers, like fruit picking estimated at $0.36 per pound, because it is hard work with a small paycheck. That causes labor shortages.
• Employers must pay fees to document each temporary foreign worker when there are no US citizen job applicants ($325 to $1,500 plus other fees as of 2011).
• Each foreign worker must pay $405 to $1,020 for themselves plus $230 to $420 for each relative after the employer pays to document the temporary migrant worker.
• Employers must pay to document foreign employees, plus visa extension if applicable.
• Foreign workers become undocumented when employers refuse to pay fees and file paperwork ($10,000 fine).
• The Real ID Act of 2005 banned drivers licenses for foreign workers when the employer refuses to pay documentation fees.
• California confiscated and sold about $40 million worth of vehicles annually from undocumented immigrants starting in 2005.
• US housing abandonment climbed to 18 million from 2005 to 2010 according to CNBC.
• The US population declined while Mexico's population grew by 16 million:
• Mexico counted 97 million in the 2000 census.
• Mexico counted 113 million in the 2010 census.
• Mexico's birth rate cannot account for the recent population growth.
• California's economic downturn in 2009 is the worst since the Great Depression.

The following facts are also missing:

• Herbert Hoover started Mexican Repatriation by lowering the immigrant quota threshold below the number of legal immigrants and citizens in March 1929.
• The economy destabilized in September 1929, about 6 months after Mexican Repatriation began.
• California responded to the destabilized economy by initiating the removal of several million US residents without regard to legal residency status.
• Property was confiscated and sold to pay transportation expenses.
• From 1929 to 1932 new home sales in the United States declined 80 percent as the number of US residents abruptly declined.
• California officially apologized for deporting over 1 million US citizens and legal residents in 2005.

These facts are well known and relevant to all immigration discussions involving North America. The only excuse for leaving out these facts is to influence the election process.

Regards, nanoatzin (talk).

Hmmm... see Illegal entry#United States. See also "CRS Report for Congress: Immigration Enforcement Within the United States" (pdf). Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. April 6, 2006., cited therein. quoting from that second item, "The law prohibits aliens from entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place which has not been designated by an immigration officer (i.e., a port of entry). It also prohibits any alien from eluding inspection by immigration officers." §275(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is cited in support of that quote. I think you'll find that codified in 8 U.S.C. § 1325. User:Wtmitchell 01:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Wtmitchell, it is good to meet you. Please sign your posts.

USC 8 §1325 reads as follows:

Any alien who is apprehended ... shall be subject to a civil penalty ...

Civil courts do not adjudicate crime.

A civil penalty is not a criminal penalty (i.e.: USC 8 §1325 does not discuss crime).

You are only "illegal" if you are found guilty in a court of law.

Civil courts are for things like divorce. Not crimes. Anyone that has ever gone to divorce court is "illegal" in the exact same way as undocumented immigrants.

It is not a crime to walk across the Sonoran Desert.

Remarkably stupid, but not criminal.

Undocumented immigrants are not guilty of a misdemeanor or felony.

Therefore undocumented immigrants are not "illegal immigrants".

People that have been found guilty in a court of law of a felony or misdemeanor are "illegal".

Only immigrants found guilty of a crime in a court of law are "illegal immigrants".

That is not what is being discussed in the article, which is why this article falls into the category of political campaign material intended to alter elections.

"Illegal" in that context is a violation of Wikipedia's 501(c)3 charity status.

Regards, nanoatzin (talk).

Getting back to the title of this section, I see nothing in the term illegal immigrant that refers to any race or ethnicity whatsoever. You may find the term distasteful, but unless Irish illegals are described differently than Chinese or Nigerian illegals, I don't see how it is racist. Plazak (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Using the word "illegal" to mean "undocumented" falls into the category of illiterate behavior. "Illegal alien" is illiterate when used to describe a person that lacks documentation. Illiterate and distasteful are very different words. I did not say "distasteful". That is not what I meant. If you believe that I am saying "illegal immigrant" is ignorant when you are describing undocumented people, then that would also be accurate. I am not trying to insult anyone. I don't know what other words to use. It is ignorant to say "illegal" when you mean "undocumented". Regards. Nanoatzin (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Responding to Nanoatzin, in the second "..." part of the snippet you requoted as "Any alien who is apprehended ... shall be subject to a civil penalty ...", it says, "Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed." I'm not a lawyer, but that indicates to me that criminal penalties might be imposed. In section (a) just above the requoted snippet, it says, "... shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, ..." (Title 18 of the United States Code covers Crimes and Criminal procedure (see [1]). I don't think I've neglected to sign any of my comments lately. Apologies if I have and failed to notice that omission. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Criminal penalties apply ONLY TO THE EMPLOYER, not the foreign-born person. $250 to $10,000 fine for each foreign-born person plus prison when the EMPLOYER fails to document their employees. That is how employees become undocumented.

If there is an expired visa, then the foreign-born visitor pays for a visa extension.

The undocumented person may pay a civil fine of $50 to $250 if the judge thinks they were negligent (not a crime). That is how they pay for the cost of enforcement. Criminal penalties only apply to criminal behavior. Being undocumented is not a crime. Lying about it is a crime.

Criminal penalties only apply for repeat offenders.

You don't get a criminal record the first time you drive 10mile/hour over the speed limit.

USC Title 8 § 1182 indicates that it is "illegal" for a foreign-born person to reside in the US because of a mental disease, because of a mental defect, because of communicable disease, because the person is a Nazi, because the person is a drug trafficker, because the person is a suspected terrorist, because the person is a communist, because the person has felony conviction is the US, or because the person has a felony conviction in the home country (armed robbery, grand theft, murder, ...).

THAT is an illegal immigrant.

People that are insane, people that represent a threat to public safety, and people that lie to federal workers are the only "illegal immigrants" identified in USC Title 8.

Using the word "illegal" to describe a person that is "undocumented" but not criminal is just plain ignorant, even if "every one else is doing it".

I hope this finds everyone well.Nanoatzin (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

8 USC 1325 is speaking of (quoting) "any alien who". That section is not speaking of that alien's employer, if that alien is employed. The civil and criminal penalties mentioned in that section would apply to the alien himself or herself, not to that alien's employer, if that alien is employed.

Let me try this from another angle. A person who sticks a gun in my face and steals my wallet and watch is a thief. That person is an armed robber. That person has committed a crime. That person is a criminal. That person may or may not ever be convicted in a criminal court of having committed that felonious act. Whether or not that person is ever convicted in a criminal court of having committed that particular felonious act, that person has committed a crime and that person is a criminal. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Violating the civil rights of foreign-born people is not "another angle".

People are not "illegal" until after a court of law says they are illegal.

No person shall be held to answer for a ... crime ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution are applicable to aliens residing within the United States.

An allegation is a claim of a fact by a party in a (court) pleading. Allegations remain assertions without proof, until they can be proved.

An allegation does not become a crime until after judge or jury says that it is a crime in a court of law.

That is how things are supposed to work in the United States.

Best regards, Nanoatzin (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition Incorrect

The definition area us unrelated to the breakdown of any actual laws regarding foreign-born people living in the US.Nanoatzin (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The definition area has been corrected to remove most fiction and add facts.Nanoatzin (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ham-handed, apparently POV edits by User:Nanoatzin

This article is outside of my normal focus areas, but it is on my watchlist. I am concerned about recent edits by Nanoatzin. I have not been following these edit-by-edit. The specific edit which prompted this comment was this one. Subsequent to that edit, we have this article asserting in Wikipedia's editorial voice that the likes of former presidential candidates John McCain, Barry Goldwater and George Romney, all of whom are or were US citizens born outside the United States, are considered naturalized citizens (Lowell Weicker as well, though he didn't make it past the presidential primary process; perhaps others too). Can we get this under control? Can we come to a consensus here about Nanoatzin's POV issues before this article gets further into the fringe?

I've been involved in discussions above, and I consider myself to have a WP:COI here re any administrative action. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I was unaware that US immigration law is "fringe territory" in an article about US immigration law. Seriously?

May I remind you of the following administrator Wtmitchell?.

... if a claim is factual, the article is therefore neutral.

Presumably that includes actual US law?

I am pleased that you took such a strong interest in [the correction of this typo]. Appreciate the help.

I posted zero material with political content.

If there is any political content, then kindly take that up with the actual person that did that.

Owing to the fact that you appear to have accused me of something that I did not do, I have made a copy of the main page, talk page, and history for both.

My editing efforts began 23:01, 19 March 2013‎. This article contained substantial fiction masquerading as fact before that, which actually is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy.

I discussed EXACTLY what I planned to do about that violation before I began editing.

My focus is limited to inserting facts related to US law and removing fiction that does not belong in "encyclopedic reference material".

As an administrator, Wikipedia and you have entered into a fiduciary agreement that means anything that you do on behalf of the organization WILL compromise US charity status for the entire organization.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

I WILL inform senators, representative, IRS, and DoE if an administrator removes any of my contributions when the edit may support a political agenda on this topic.

That being said, how are government immigration laws and university information about immigration an "NPOV violation" of Wikipedia policy in an article that is about immigration?

I was unaware that academic information from universities is not permitted by Wikipedia policy (i.e.: facts).

I was unaware that actual US immigration law "gets further into the fringe". Really?

Would you please let me know what is wrong with including the US Sentencing Commission, the US State Department, DoHS, and USCIS?

I see that you are displeased but have posted no substantiated proof to dispute any references or statements.

You are welcome to dispute individual references or facts.

You are welcome to suggest better or more credible references that may support the article.

If you can substantiate anything that you disagree with, then I will make corrections.

[Kindly clarify in accordance with actual Wikipedia policy - provide links or other substantiated information to support your claims (click here).]

Regards, Nanoatzin (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)