Talk:Illegal immigration: Difference between revisions

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 91 days

International relations Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Economics Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

• ILO
• IOM
• GCIM

See others: CMS UNHRC

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

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

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

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

Oppose. "illegal Immigration" is commonly used (see the attached EU document from the UNHCR website): [1]. In addition, "illegal" is more precise and self-explanatory than the euphemism "irregular", which may be mistaken to mean unusual, erratic, or episodic. Plazak (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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