Talk:Illegal immigrant

I think this statement is not neutral:

"Restricting immigration to the United States has been driven by nativism or by economic fears of union busting and other labor concerns"

This basically states that there are no legitimate reasons for there to be opposition to Illegal Immigration. It claims that concern has only been related to xenophobic or racsist phenomenon. I think it is a little short sighted and unfair to claim that the only opposition to illegal immigration is founded in discriminatory practices. Perhaps this should state that this practice has happened, or is common, but not as it stands, which essentially reasons that it is the only opposition. Other reasons should be stated, not merely these. I think the nativism comment specifically is problematic, as that term is obviously perjorative.

I think 'illegal alien' should be restored rather than redirected to 'illegal immigrant'. Illegal alien is the term applied in the US Code, and is more correct than illegal immigrant (i.e., if a person does not intend to establish residency) in some cases.

'Those who support humane immigration policy'? Come on. I support strict immigration, but my plan is humane. I think 'liberal' or 'open-borders' would be a more correct term. Somebody obviously has re-written this to a pro-illegal view.

Now an anonymous user finds that 'liberal' isn't acceptable - the only term he'll allow is 'open-borders'. Seeing as how POV issues are coming up in the editing of this article, it would be helpful if editors discuss and sign their edits with a 'user name'. Willmcw 02:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I re-wrote some sections to avoid contentious issues that are not directly relevant to the illegal immigrant, such as whether those who are not immigration reductionsists should be called "humane", "liberal", or "open-border proponents". Also added more info on the employment situation. Willmcw 22:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recall the writings of Confucius many centuries ago. When asked what would be the first thing he would do if he were chosen to govern, he replied, "Rectify the names ... If the names are not correct, language is without an object." Confucius recognized how officials used language to deceive rather than inform. Consider the following trajectory of political correctness for turning trespassers into citizens:

Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant Undocumented Worker Unauthorized Resident Residual Foreign-Born Pre-amnestied resident Amnestied resident Dual Citizen

I don't know what country your writing about, but in the USA the common terminology went: Citizen, Foreign workers, Coolie, [franchise removed] Illegal Alien, Illegal Immigrant, Undocumented Worker. The illegal immigrant and undocumented worker seem to coexist right now, not surprising considering the country is more polarized than in 1861 just before the Confederates attacked. Whether the Americans with electoral power will ever decide call their countrymen citizens again is something debatable.

This article needs to be expanded to include illegal immigrants in other countires or moved to Illegal immigration in the United States --

• Links for international expantion:
• UK
• China
• Baltic Sea region
• Canada
• 2002 meeting on illegals in the EU
• Australia

--

nixie

01:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I read it, almost the entire article is about illegal immigration in general, and only the legal & economic section is US focused. The problem is that almost all of the examples in the article are from the U.S. I'll try to break out the purely U.S. issues into a subsection. Maybe you and others can provide more international content. -Willmcw 01:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a personal opinion, I think this article should be moved to Illegal immigration. An illegal immigrant is an individual, whereas this article is examining the broader topic, including causes, policy, the future, etc. - Borofkin 05:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't have any objection. The existing lead paragraph would need to be moved down and rewritten, and a new intro would have to be made. The bottom line is that the article is about illegal immigrants and illegal immigration. Which term it is filed under is secondary. -Willmcw 06:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Which term it is filed under is secondary." If that is the case then there is no point moving it.

The only other argument in favour of moving it is that it would bring the name in line with articles on similar topics, such as

Immigration to the United Kingdom, Immigration to Australia. I certainly don't have the motivation to request the move, though. - Borofkin

04:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph of that section has become a long discussion of U.S. immigration policy, beyond what is called for in an article on illegal immigration. I think that some of the editors may not have been aware that there is already an article (or two) that covers the general history of U.S. immigration. Because of that I'm going to cut some interesting material out, and hopefully find a way to integrate it into the main U.S. immigration article. -Willmcw 01:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this article, and was surprised by the amount of POV. Ive attempted to do some clean up, but the following passages have been removed as they seem to me to be overly POV and I couldnt find a way to integrate them:

"While the rules of the UN's refugee convention make these people exempt from the regular migration law, the US keeps these families in prison camps until their status can be proven; this policy was started under

"In the United States, the majority of illegal immigrants from outside of Latin America entered legally on tourist or work visas." - Not particularly usefull as an example, especially without refrences.

"No matter the cause, there are many

"The Snakeheads gang of China has been smuggling labor into Pacific Rim nations for over a century, making Chinatowns frequent centers of illegal immigrants."- refrences?

"The use of forged documents to gain access to these privileges is not uncommon." - where is it "not uncommon"? refrences?

"When a nation such as the US or Canada experiences this phenomena they try to increase professional migration into their country, while a nation like Cuba instead restricts professional migration out of their country. The policies of the US, Canada and Cuba, have all statistically been largely successful. However, restrictions on human migration are not loved by their victims, and it is considered better for these potentially disgrunteled persons to be outside one's borders than inside." - extreamly POV, and the final sentance is an unencyclopedic opinion.

" Restricting immigration to the

Iain 14:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You didn't give any explanation for deleting the entire U.S. section. I've re-instated it. Can you explain what is the matter with it? Perhaps less drastic surgery can help. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Haveing another look at it, I may well have overreacted by pulling it all out; but Im afraid I dont know sufficent about the issues to be able to do more scientific surgery. The section seems mostly to be dubious, unreferenced anti-american POV. Issues about the section which spring out at me: "Restricting immigration to the

"The quota for Jews was 5,000 a year in the 1930s and 1940s, and the waiting list for these immigration spots grew enormously when

"But in the 1990s the U.S. government again tightened restrictions on immigration. It is alledged that Ex post facto residency restrictions led to the imprisonment and deportation of over one million legal immigrants between 1997 and 2004. This has caused concern among some civil liberties advocates. These people are not given a right to legal counsel as they are not accused of criminal action and are being detained administratively. In response to these concerns, dogs are no longer used on the inmates, and lawyers have been allowed to visit detainees in prisons in New Jersey and Virginia." -- Again, no refrences. Not even for the "concern by civil liberty activists". We also have a "Do you still beat your wife?" type acusation in the last sentance (there is no prior mention of dogs being used on the detainees: hence the sugestion that they arnt anymore is... odd!).

The next 2 paragraph arnt as bad, though lacking in references and confused about when the practice of employing illegal imigrants was banned. The last paragraph in the section also dosent explain what a "

I think most of the US specific issues raised in the section can go to Immigration to the United States, or if described more generally could be integrated in to the rest of this article. I will have a go at cleaning the above issues up.

Iain 09:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please do not casually redistribute the material from the United States section into the rest ofthe article. The last major edit round involved collecting them together, to prevent them from overwhelming everything esle. And I disagree that it should all go to the U.S. immigration article. It's already huge and this is appropriate material here. We can add more material to reference the employment ban and explain the matricular consular. Most of the other edits that you describe I don't have a problem with, in fact, I think they will cut out some dubious material. Thanks. -Willmcw 11:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know this is a hot-button issue in Europe--possibly even moreso as immigrants to Europe tend to be Muslim and are feared as having terrorist ties. A new section to the article focusing on Europe should be added.

Good idea. Go for it! -Willmcw 02:37, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the term "illegal immigrant" is perjorative, POV and dehumanizing. The POV is that of the United States government, which created the bureaucracies that try to regulate immigration. When the first European colonizers arrived in North America, there was no INS or BCIS, and there were no checks on their official statuses as refugees, workers, entrepreneurs, or tourist visa-holders.

I prefer the term "people without papers", "undocumented" or simply "immigrant". I realize that I'm one against many other POVs here in this forum that is Wikipedia. But I just want to make sure you are aware that there is a POV of this article, and I hope you work to acknowledge it. Also, I disagree that people move to new countries in order to receive welfare. The economy and jobs are primary factors. Often the case is that families want to reunite so that they can take care of their loved ones. And sometimes people just feel like moving to new places.

24.205.133.151 00:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. It's important that the articles in this project be as NPOV as possible. Let me begin by remarking that this is a world encyclopedia. This article in particular strives to avoid being only about immigration to the United States. As the previous comment suggests, it is a big topic in Europe too. Further, note that the introduction has a discussion of the terms used. "Immigrant" is too broad, since regular immigration is not part of this article. "Undocumented" or "people without papers" are inaccurate and indirect ways of saying "unpermitted". Most people have some kinds of doucments, what they don't have in this case is a residency permit. Many illegal immigrants (the majority of non-latin Americans) arrive on passports with legal visas, which they overstay. So all of those terms have problems. Overall, "illegal immigrant" seems like the best choice. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

PS, An idea was floated earlier to move the page to "illegal immigration". The article would need some re-writing as a result, but I think that the terms are similar enough that scu a move might be worthwhile if it results in less POV. -Willmcw 01:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be moved to "illegal immigration". I just heard a radio segment today that explains that the term "illegal immigrant" is in accurate. I excerpted from the commentary below. Thanks! Guppy 04:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"First of all, "illegal" is a modifier for actions. Such as left turns, drug use, immigration, and things- like drugs, weapons, spam. But not people. For example, we don't say ,"illegal drinker", we say "underage drinker". We don't say "illegal driver", we say "unlicensed driver". We don't say "illegal curser", we say "violator of FCC rules". Calling a person illegal reduces that person to one illegal act.

"Secondly, the word illegal is highly charged, igniting assocations like crime, danger, threat and punishment. Referring to people as illegal immigrants reinforces the sense that the immigrants are tied to all of these negative things. We are desensitized to the phrase, but the associations are still strenghtened with its repetition."

I agree. Then it would also be easier to discuss illegal immigration from different countries. Tfine80 22:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I propose that this article is merged with Illegal immigration. Both seem to contain similar information, but one should redirect to the other. I choose 'immigration' as that is the name of the subject, rather that 'immigrant' as that is terminology. --195.92.67.208 23:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the other editors have come to a consensus on this, I believe. It's just that we'e taken a year to get around to do anything about it. -Willmcw 00:07, July 24, 2005 (UTC)