Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Illegal" vs. "undocumented"

Here's a place to discuss the frequent back-and-forth changes between "illegal aliens" and "undocumented workers." Joyous! | Talk 18:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Request citation for federal statute that is violated by "Illegal immigrants" as well as penalties. Suggest that absent such a statute (there is none), term is misleading. Being present in US without documentary support is a civil issue, with the only sanction being deportation. It is thus not comparable to shoplifting or other criminal offenses nor to status offenses. It might be comparable to having been found against in a civil matter such as slander or a civil rights class action or a debt default. No common language is parallel, no one says or writes that someone is an "illegal slanderer," an "illegal racist," or an "illegal debtor."


Wikipedia should be free of policial bias, and call things what they are. Everybody knows that undocumented is the word for illegal alien. Wikipedia acknowledges this too by redirecting undocumented alien -> illegal immigration. So why should the article text be different? 24.6.186.56 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
When you find yourself typing the phrase "everybody knows", apparently they don't. 24.182.239.225 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
If people can't be illegal, they can certainly be criminal.67.8.239.238 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Around half of undocumented immigrants did not illegally immigrate and are therefore not guilty of a crime, only a civil violation of over-staying their visas.[1] That is why calling undocumented people "illegal aliens" is wrong.Lucanio (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Lucanio
Over-staying their visa is still a crime. A "civil violation" is still a crime, and they do not have legal status, therefore they are illegal. Saying that they are just "undocumented" is like calling a shoplifter a "undocumented shopper". After all, they only lack a receipt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.178.156.22 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
By that silly logic, people who break the speed limit should be referred to as "illegal drivers". Gimme a break.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Your analogy is faulty. It would be far more correct to compare to drivers who do not have a license or whose license is suspended. It is illegal for them to drive, ie. they could be accurately described as illegal drivers. The issue with illegal aliens is not a lack of documentation. Many of them could get all the documentation in the world, but they could still never be legally present in the US do to their past crimes such as identity theft etc. 2600:1007:B00B:EEDE:3D1E:7022:FF4B:88F9 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The only reason for using "undocumented" instead of illegal is to avoid acknowledging the simple fact that the people concerned have broken the law, plain and simple.2600:1007:B00B:EEDE:3D1E:7022:FF4B:88F9 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/24/politics/undocumented-immigrants-not-necessarily-criminal/index.html
People who have over stayed their visa lack legal status to be in the US. Hence they are unlawfully present. While having a DACA stops them accumulating more "unlawful presence" time, it does not give them legal status. Therefore it is correct to say that they are illegal. Using the term 'undocumented' only serves to give the article a particular political slant, and takes away from it's objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.221.8.40 (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2017‎

Note: A proposal to use "undocumented" instead of the more accurate illegal was voted down at NPOV Notice Board — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.144.47 (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. There was no consensus either way. To the extent that anything came out of that, it's that it should be decided on case by case basis. Neither term is "banned".Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
No one but you (Volunteer Marek) ever said anything about banning words. However, the discussion at NPOV Notice Board overwhelmingly voted against always using "undocumented" in place of the more accurate illegal. Of the votes against banning "illegal", they were fairly evenly split between always using "illegal" and deciding on a case by case basis. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
One more time. The discussion "voted" (which doesn't matter since Wikipedia isn't decided by votes) not to ALWAYS use the term "undocumented". The word "always" and the phrase "not always" does not mean the same thing as "never". Also, there's nothing "more accurate" about the word illegal. What does that even mean? People aren't "illegal". People commit "illegal" acts. However, all of this is beside the point, since Wikipedia usage is decided not by personal opinions but by usage in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek are yet again putting words in other peoples mouth. I did not use the word "never".
Second "illegal alien" is more accurate as it accurately describes the persons status.. Your argument rests on a meaningless splitting of the phrase and focusing only on the first word. Yes a person can not be illegal, the same as they cannot be undocumented. It is a two word phrase, where the first word "illegal" describes a subset of the group "aliens", who are persons that are not nationals of a country. A person who is not in a country legally are by definition illegal aliens as the lack legal status. The word illegal is referring to their status, not the person themselves.
The only reason for using the phrase "undocumented immigrant" is to try and avoid that fact the the persons concerned have broken the law, by either entering or staying in the country illegally.
As to usage in reliable sources, You state in your comment above, written at "12:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)" that "which comes down to how reliable sources do it. (I think they're split)", so by your own admission, reliable sources are split, so that argument holds no weight. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Who's splitting hairs? "Illegal alien" no more accurately describes a person's status than "undocumented migrant". You're confusing the word "accurate" with the notion "fits in with my ideological beliefs". I can say the exact the same thing about the phrase "undocumented migrant", where "undocumented" describes a subset of "migrant". Except "undocumentED" has that -ed in it which is what makes it clear that it, unlike "illegal" in "illegal alien", is describing an attribute. Regardless, that's all irrelevant cuz we do what reliable sources do. Which brings us to the second point...
Illegal is more accurate because it describes the real problem, that the person has broken the law. Undocumented imply's that the problem is a lack of documentation, but many illegal aliens have lots of immigration documentation, including visas's that they have overstayed and deportation orders. "undocumented" is simply a way to push the point of view that people should be given a pass on laws that you do not agree with. 70.194.12.74 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
... you say "so by your own admission, reliable sources are split, so that argument holds no weight." That makes absolutely no sense. My argument is that "illegal" vs "undocumented" should be decided on case by case basis and in this case "undocumented" is more appropriate ("illegal" in this context is just an indirect way of POV pushing). That is exactly what the fact that reliable sources are split suggest. Just because you can type "that argument holds no weight" on your keyboard, doesn't mean that that's actually true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Given reliable sources are split as you admit, how does that show "undocumented" is more appropriate in this case? By your comment, that fact that they are split says it should be determined on a case by case basis. This does not say that your preferred language should be used. You can't have it both ways. 70.194.12.74 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
"Illegal immigrants" is grammatical nonsense, which is why mainstream newspapers like the NYT have rejected it in favour of "undocumented immigrants". It's not just political correctness. "Illegal immigration" is a perfectly fine term, but a person is not "illegal"; an action is illegal. On the basis of grammar alone, the term "illegal immigrants" should be changed to "undocumented immigrants" or "people who have immigrated illegally" wherever it occurs. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
"Illegal immigrants" is not grammatical nonsense. You're ignoring the meaning of the word "immigrant", which indicates you conducted an act of immigration. The preceding word (legal or illegal) indicates whether that act was conducted legally or not. For example, a tenant indicates you occupy a house/dwelling. A legal tenant would occupy that dwelling legally (e.g., with a lease). An illegal tenant would not. This is nothing more than politics and messaging. Undocumented, on the other hand, simply indicates the immigrant is lacking documentation of their immigration. A person's illegal immigration may or may not be documented (e.g., your plane ticket, your expired visa, are all documentation of that act of immigration). Not only is "undocumented" political, it's not even accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKG990 (talkcontribs) 00:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
It is not stated that the person would be illegal, but that the person in question is an immigrant (which you do not even challenge), and one which did so breaking the law, thus illegally. So this is the appropriate term.
In any case, undocumented immigrant is certainly wrong, because those persons are not "undocumented"; in fact, they do have documents identifying their identity, citizenship (of Mexico etc.), so they are not undocumented. It is even completely ridiculous to say someone who had a temporary work permit under DACA was "undocumented"... the work permit under DACA certainly is documentation...
Further, undocumented implies that these persons immigrated legally, but for some reason lack the documents, because they lost them or forgot to apply, so they just need to go to the authorities to have those documents issued. --Tscherpownik (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Only far-left extremists and those who support illegal immigration say "undocumented immigrants" or "immigrants without documentation." Those are bizarre and nonsensical euphemisms used by the far-left fringe, such as Mexican supremacists and Democrats, in order justify their breaking the law and demographic engineering to ensure electoral domination. "Illegal immigrants" is the established, mainstream term used in newspapers such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Associated Press; and "illegal aliens" is the established legal term. --36.67.86.253 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Iam always confused every time this topic comes up there is large debate what there called title 8 clear defines it they are illegal aliens that is the proper legal term for someone that crosses the border at a place other than a us checkpoint [1]. I see a bunch of emotional arguments and people that want to down play the hole debate i will state my feelings on the article below but the simple point is a fact is a fact someone already made a legal definition for the person and that is what should be follow to keep topic neutral 6thstreetfisherman (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas dealt with this specific issue when he issued a preliminary injunction on Feb. 16, 2015, against President Barack Obama’s immigration amnesty plan. This was in U.S. v. Texas, the lawsuit filed by 26 states to stop the “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents” program announced by Obama in November 2014. This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction. The justices split four-to-four on the case, leaving the injunction in place and the president’s plan dead for the rest of his term. In footnote two of his Feb. 16 order, Hanen says this: "The Court uses the phrases ‘illegal immigrant’ and ‘illegal alien’ interchangeably…The Court also understands that there is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase ‘illegal alien’ offensive. The Court uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012)." [2] 186.148.94.6 (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Science study

Remind me to add this Science study when the page is no longer locked: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/08/30/science.aan5893 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Conference of Catholic Bishops: reprehensible http://www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-157.cfm

00:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Amazing this is best proof yet that this topic is completely one side to the pro.everyone on of the "sources" are democratic or soros funded.in at least one case very openly pushing pro side how about that it will american taxpayers 750 billion dollars [1] or likely costs to tax payers would be $6.2 billion a year in education expense alone.[2]on last one written all the way back in 2004 they knew it would be pricey.Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget[3]6thstreetfisherman (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. Also Wikipedia:Competence is required. Volunteer Marek  06:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 September 2017

I simply am inquiring to change some of the sentences to be rid of grammatical error, particularly in the punctuation. 73.51.104.37 (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done Thanks for your suggestion, but we need to know specific things that you want changed. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 September 2017

I feel like this page would benefit from the clarification that this is an executive order. 50.24.202.114 (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done Thanks for the suggestion. The sources I have found do not say this is an executive order. It was an announcement by Sessions, followed by a statement by Trump. It's true that DACA was originally an executive order by Obama, but I'm not finding sources that say terminating it was an executive order by Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Minors arriving after DACA dates?

Everybody is arguing about extending, renewing, or replacing the law establishing legal status of the minors who arrived illegally before June 15, 2012. Is there a move to extend the DACA arrival date to include minors who have arrived illegally after the original DACA parameters? Or, are there moves to introduce a new law (DACA 2?) to apply to those who have arrived illegally after the original date parameters set by Pres. Obama? Pete unseth (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2017 (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: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/spinning-facts-daca/. 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)
    • ^ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/3/illegal-immigrants-cost-taxpayers-750-billion-over/
    • ^ https://cis.org/Memorandum/Estimating-Impact-DREAM-Act
    • ^ https://cis.org/Report/High-Cost-Cheap-Labor
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals&oldid=809300783"
    This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals
    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