Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Graduation cap.png
This article has been the subject of several Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignments:

Description Tense

The synopsis at the top of the page is currently written using the past tense, while much of the body is written using the present tense. These should be unified. (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

1.) In the Introduction of the article's last paragraph's first three sentences and last sentence use statistics in support of the program. These sentences are unnecessary as the exact same statistics are used later in the article. I would like to take out theses sentences because they repeat statistics given in under the "Impact" section.

2.) The last paragraph in the "Establishment" section is repeated almost word for word further down in the "Expansion" section. Therefore the paragraph in the "Establishment" section should be deleted so that the article isn't repeating the same information. That being said the sentence in the "Expansion" section in the beginning of the second paragraph: "However, in December 2014,Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (a similar program)." has a subtle political bias. The phrase, "all with Republican governors" adds an unnecessary political dimension to the sentence which serves to portray the Republican party in a negative way. If you remove the phrase from the sentence it makes it politically neutral while still maintaining the original idea of the sentence.

3.) In the "Reaction" section of the article the last sentence is a bit confusing and unnecessary given that Mitt Romney ran for President fives years ago. It should be given greater context as to why it is in this section (for example add that it was one of his campaign points or promises during his run for office) or it should be removed completely from the article.

4.) Citation number thirteen is cited four times throughout the article however, the actual citation was never defined in the citation section. I will delete the sentences using citation thirteen if they are not accompanied by any other citation.TM6031 (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This is citation 13: Be so kind as to add it. Other editors botched the citation up after I originally added it. I vehemently disagree with point #1: the lede should summarize the content of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

5.) I would recommend reviewing the last part of the introduction. While the initial paragraphs present a history of the program, the last paragraph presents as advocacy for the program itself. There are definite attempts to present DACA in an explicitly favorable light (i.e., selectively presenting favorable statistics to create an availability heuristic) rather than sticking solely to a description of the program and its history. I have attempted to remove the overt bias language to present a more objective presentation; however an overly aggressive editor continues to revert the editing changes.Smit8678 (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The content is reliably sourced. There's nothing cherry-picked in those paragraphs. The complaint is baseless. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
While they may be reliably sourced in that they are links to outside sources, it is not appropriate for the introduction to the page. Before much, if any, explanation for the program has occurred in the article, you have engaged in overt advocacy for a particular point of view. These statements would be appropriate for a separate sections toward the end of the article, after the explanations about the program itself, in a section regarding "statistics," "controversy," or "criticisms," not in the introduction. You are "priming the pump" so to speak before the program has been explained, hence the appropriate NPOV tag.
Per WP:LEDE, we should summarize the article. A large part of the article summarizes research on the impact of DACA. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Also per WP:LEDE, it should be presented in a neutral point of view, which was the tag inserted. This tag is appropriate considering that more than one editor (please see sections in the talk page) have concerns that there is a POV problem. And yet, the POV concerns are brought up, you engage in an aggressive edit war to revert my edits and attempts to spur discussion among editors, and then you send me a message warning me about reverting edits, when you were the one to initiate the edit-reversions to begin with.Smit8678 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
You have violated WP:3RR in these edits. The fact that someone else on the talk page at one point or another complained about anything, does not make it OK to introduce nonsensical tags in the lede of the article. What exactly is it about the paragraph that is non-neutral? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I will not go into this with you again. I have previously clearly stated my concerns, and others in this talk have also clearly noted their concerns. You are free to disagree with them. That is the beauty of Wikipedia. The {{WP:NPOV}} tag is meant to direct people to the talk section to spur debate to reach consensus, which, based on your repeated removals of the tag, I can only surmise you do not want to happen. This is personal problem on your part, not on mine. Smit8678 (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph 3/sentence 3, reads like position paper

Not only does this statement read like a position paper, it is supported by some dead links. "There are no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment while most economists say that DACA benefits the U.S. economy.[10][11][12][13] "

  1. 10, NPR: "For many Americans, the influx of immigrants hurts their prospects significantly." is not saying generic "no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment"
  2. 11, page is gone
  3. 12, AP: There is nothing in this article so much as even inferring "no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment"
  4. 13, nothing there, no link at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

→ I added an NPOV tag to this section. My attempts to address these issues continue to be reverted by an overly aggressive and biased editor. Smit8678 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph 3

Most of paragraph 3 is a repeat of info already in Section Impact, so why is it here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Section Migration Flow

"The 2015 GAO report said perceptions of U.S. immigration policy played a part, specifically because some believed that prospects for a broad overhaul of U.S. immigration laws would include a path to citizenship for those already in the country. " Which would include DACA, even if it isn't specifically specified. Rendering this, "did not mention DACA", misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Cite # 11

Hi, not confident editing a citation on my own. Citation # 11 is a dead link, however I found the article directly on the AP's website (the original link was New York Times republication of an AP article): (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Hey, (talk · contribs · WHOIS), thanks--you can do this: all I had to do was this. (The only real trick is that the thing was cited five times, so you have to look for the one that has the complete citation.) Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 is not Neutral, and expresses a particular POV

I realise that this issue has already been raised, and being inexperienced at posting comments on Wikipedia articles, I apologise in advance for any transgression of Wikipedia conventions. I do however feel that Paragraph 3 represents a subjective POV and attempts to influence the reader towards a certain viewpoint. As such, it should not be included on the page. It discusses rather than informing; does not present a neutral standpoint, and does not add anything to the article. All sentences start with (e.g.) : ...Research shows that, ...Studies have shown that, ...There are no known major adverse impacts, ...most economists say that, and ...There is no evidence that.

These are all attempts to present a particular standpoint as being proven, correct, reasonable and relevant, when they are only in fact representing a biased POV.

As far as I can see, there is no reason for any part of the paragraph from: There is no evidence that... to ...within the United States to be included in this article. --Pdadme (talk)

The language is fully consistent with the text in the body of the article and mirrors the language of the reliable sources that the text relies on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The third paragraph is sourced, that is not a problem. But this seems a long paragraph in an introductory section, while the topic of this paragraph is discussed in more detail in a section on down below. Seems this paragraph should be reduced, at least. Comments?? Pete unseth (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Statistics with grammar mistake

"There is no evidence that DACA-eligible individuals are more likely to commit crimes than any other person within the United States"

This sentence is based on statistical facts, but, because of the grammar used, it is a complete lie.

I will explain.

For the purpose of explanation, let us presume that: 1 those within the DACA group can be ascribed a 1 percent probability of committing a crime. 2 The non-DACA group has a 2 percent probability.

The phrase "Any other person" means that a newborn baby in an incubator who is in a coma has just as much or more of a likelihood of committing a crime as a DACA person.

Whatever your political ideology, this is far from Wiki level of quality.

Also, keep in mind that technically ALL DACA persons were 100 percent likely to commit a crime, because none of them were here legally before they registered for the DACA program.

Please keep in mind that this comment is not denying the MEANING of the article, it is stating only that because of poor grammar you all look like idiots. Sorry.

And no one can correct the grammar because page is locked.

Please keep up the quality level of Wiki - it is the best and most reliable source of information in the world (opinion statement - no reference given) Romney

"There is no evidence that there is higher criminality incidence among the group of DACA registered individuals than among the general population of the United States of America."

("United States" may also refer to the United States of Mexico, which has different crime statistics.)

Good point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Status of Policy

The 1st sentence of the lede suggests DACA was a formally established policy of the US Government. In fact it was a policy memo of the intent to ignore existing immigration policy ("prosecutoral discretion" - by the Obama administration, with an end date in 2019. The Trump administration provided a gradual end to this unratified policy. (

Status of Immigrants

I would recommend changing several instances of the term "Illegal immigrants" to the more accurate and less biased "undocumented immigrants". Specifically, illegal is a status that can be applied to actions, but not to persons. The act of entering a country without permission or of overstaying one's visa could be considered "Illegal Immigration", but a person who has done so is simply "undocumented". No human being is illegal.

The First sentence of Paragraph 3 incorrectly states that Trump has said DACA is bad for the economy

   "President Trump has made a number of remarks about the impact of DACA on the U.S. economy, some of which have been proven false by economists"

None of the citations provided, including the two refs immediately following the sentence, state anywhere that Trump said DACA was bad for the economy.

The first ref is a TIME Magazine article, entitled Here's What President Trump Has Said About DACA in the Past. None of the quotes in that article mention the economy at all nor the article itself. This citation doesn't work here whether Trump is mentioned or not

The second ref, from The Observer: End of DACA Spells Trouble for Economy, mostly centers around Trump's campaign promises to improve the Economy in general, then makes the case that ending DACA would actually hurt the economy because it would cost so many billions of dollars to deport all 800,000 DACA recipients, which, considering the fact that the plan was never to deport DACA recipients in the first place,[1][2][3] is completely irrelevant.

As far as economic benefit is concerned, and I'm not saying DACA did or did not benefit the economy, but the only argument this article makes with regard to the claim that DACA does benefit the economy is that DACA recipients on average are making 42% higher wages now than they were before, citing this study, which in turn means they are paying more money in taxes, which is good for the economy. Now, idk what part of the author's butt 42% came from, but unless I'm missing something painfully obvious, that figure did not come from that study. The closest thing I could see even resembling that claim was a projected 10 year annual wage growth among DACA recipients of $36,232 in 2017 to $48,957 in 2028.

Last, the study references indefatigably the Medicare and Social Security contributions made from the wages of DACA students, but never once mentions taxes. Presumably, the reason for this figures absence is that DACA recipients do not pay taxes. In other words this article published by The Observer is just... it's awful. The entire thing is wrong, or its only right about things that are irrelevant. I've never read The Observer before, are we even sure this is a verifiable source? Because that article is an abomination.

So, not only does the first sentence incorrectly assert that Trump said DACA was bad for the economy (or at the very least, not in those articles), but goes on to say that Trump's non-existent claims have been proven false by by non-existent "economists." I can assure you, who ever wrote that Oberver article is no economist.

Barring a better reference regarding Trump's supposed claims here, I'm gonna go ahead and remove that first sentenceBlob Blobbed (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


Children of legal migrants won’t qualify as Dreamers under DACA protection because they entered the country legally[4]. This is highlighted as the biggest contradiction in US immigration policy by many advocates of legal immigrants. (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Democrats Look To Trump On DREAM Act After He Puts Expiration Date On DACA Program". September 10, 2017. Retrieved February 13, 2018. 
  2. ^ "After 16 Futile Years, Congress Will Try Again to Legalize 'Dreamers'". New York Times. September 5, 2017. Retrieved February 13, 2018. 
  3. ^ "Trump ends DACA, but gives Congress window to save it". The Wasington Free Beacon. September 5, 2017. Retrieved February 13, 2018. 
  4. ^
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA