Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Conflation of terms legal & illegal

The article addresses a memorandum which grants protected status to illegal-immigrant children because legal immigrant children do not need such a policy due to their adherence to immigration law.

As a result, I have clarified the status of the individuals addressed instead of allowing vagueness and conflation to obscure the article's topic. SumaiyaJ (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of Trail of Dreams 2010 into this talk page's article was:

Consensus Reached–Awaiting Merge.

— — — — —

Request received to merge Trail of Dreams 2010 with/into Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals; November 2015 tagged. Discuss here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 05:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Strong Merge

Merge Trail of Dreams 2010 with/into Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, as it was a supportive campaign/activity by four people in support of DACA and serves to help identify the continued efforts to pass DACA, which activists hope will lead to permanent residency and eventually citizenship. TalkAbout (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If there is such a strong connection, then why is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals not even mentioned in the Trail of Dreams 2010 article? Indeed, how can a walk in the year 2010 have been in support of a memorandum authored by the Obama administration on June 15, 2012? – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
STRONG Merge or Delete!

The activities were directed towards the goal of Deferred Action by Homeland Security/ICE so that children brought here as children would receive protection which eventually led to DACA (which was worked on by many organization). If this one activity by four people was that significant Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). there would be a Trail of Dreams 2010 ACT, which there is not. Also, the article denotes the Trail of Tears as 'another journey' which it was not, it was forced relocation/genocide 'causing the expulsion or death of a substantial part of the Native Americans then living in the southeastern United States.' PEACE OUT TalkAbout (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@TalkAbout: I don't understand why you want to merge this article, which appears to be about a walk to support the passing of the DREAM Act, into something that seems a bit unrelated—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals—rather than into the DREAM Act article. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Merge into Dream Act or Deletion. I am fine with merger into the Dream Act under activities by Famous Dream Act Activists -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Act#Famous_DREAM_Act_Activists The legislation that passed was DACA (White House way to offer relief), the legislation for the Dream Act may continue to gain some traction/support by House Speaker John Boehner in recent days and ultimately see passage:" A Republican version of the Dream Act has the support of House Speaker John Boehner, who said Wednesday the bill is "about basic fairness" for children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents, The Hill reported."'Trail of Dreams 2010' is a campaign within a movement and only by four people, that in many places list themselves as 'famous'. There is already a place here: Famous DREAM Act Activists via article on Dream Act.

TalkAbout (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wbm1058 Thanks for pointing out the Dream Act as being more relevant, stand corrected, especially as it is a bill that is still in process and not dead. Peace Out TalkAbout (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I tagged the articles. But if you want to propose deletion, see WP:AFD. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Wbm1058 Thank you, Merge seems the most sensible way, under the Dream Act with its own heading or into another appropriate one. Peace Out

TalkAbout (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GenQuest "Talk to Me" 01:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

  • Note: it seems like the consensus is that a merge between Trail of Dreams 2010 and DREAM Act makes more sense -- which I agree with -- so I'm going to remove the merge tag from this page. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


Additions

Hello! I just wanted to add some information to this article such as renewal stats, advance parole information and possibly rearrange some of the format. Pedrogaytan12 (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"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)

illegal alien vs undocumented immigrant

Living the dream : new immigration policies and the lives of undocumented Latino youth Presidential executive action on immigration : overview and issues -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

please stop changing "illegal alien" to "undocumented immigrant" as illegal alien is the proper and legal term for someone is in the country without permission

Overall good article,but i think it would be good to add the consequences if president Trump would to end DACA under republican response.--Jose2495 (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be speculation and fall under WP:CRYSTAL. As for the term Illegal Alien, it appears that it has legal standing per the Hanen order, as written about in this Heritage Foundation article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not a question of whether it has legal standing or not. It's more of a WP:MOS issue - which comes down to how reliable sources do it. (I think they're split).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not a question of style. Euphemisms like "undocumented" are contrary to wikipedia policy. Given reliable sources have used both, we should not use a Euphemism. The tern "undocumented" is also highly inaccurate, as many so called "undocumented" actually have lots of documentation. Visa's that they have over stayed, deportation orders, arrest records etc. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not a euphemism. The fact that reliable sources use the term evidences that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
On the topic of what reliable sources are using, there has been a growing trend toward "unauthorized immigrant", which captures the legal point of entering (or staying in) the country without legal authority but avoids the pejorative nature of labeling an individual as illegal. This link (Unauthorized Immigration) is to a Pew Research Center usage but many more RS usages can be easily found. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources routinely use euphemisms like "sleeping with" etc.. The fact that a phrase is used by reliable sources does not prove that it is not a euphemism. 2600:1007:B00B:EEDE:3D1E:7022:FF4B:88F9 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Anyone who has no legal permission to stay in a country is staying illegaly. He is acting against the law.
The only way to change that is to change the law so that those persons are by law allowed to stay. Please notice that a law is not an Executive Order, but rather has to be approved by Congress, and/or the states. Legal=Lawful Illegal=Unlawful, from Latin. --Tscherpownik (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Persuasive speakers know well that choice of words drives perception. Calling a vehicular collision a "car accident" instead of a "road incident" or such suggest that nobody is morally responsible, only legally, and so what you did is okay and not really your fault. During Robert Ehrlich's gubernatorial reelection campaign, a PAC lobbying against his reelection produced a scare ad in low tone stating that he tried to "pay a private business" to address Baltimore City's failing school system—suggesting corrupt dealings with for-profit interests—instead of saying that Ehrlic had "attempted to foster a charter school program in Baltimore City to approach its growing public school system difficulties."
Either a racial slur or a clinical term is sufficient to describe a person of any ethnic or genetic descent; the term puts a tone to the statement, and so changes what the listener hears. This is why I often refer to legal immigrants granted citizenship as "Naturalized Americans" instead of just "Immigrants": an "immigrant" isn't a real American, and is just some dirty foreigner who came to steal our jobs; but a "Naturalized American" is an American and deserving of our patriotic respect and solidarity.
In today's political atmosphere, describing people as "illegal immigrants" or "illegal aliens" functions as an ethnic slur, immediately taking the discussion to a negative tone. The discussion on *what* to call them is grown more complex in recent years, however: many are not "undocumented", and as "unauthorized residents" we encounter programs such as DACA providing temporary work-residence permits and thus conveying authorization of a sort *from the Government*. We also don't want to make up new terms here such as "unprocessed immigrant residents", as they've been processed in a sort of way for DACA, but not by the full of immigration requirements.
So now what? Nobody has resorted to calling them WOPs at this point, based on the false etymology, mainly because "illegal immigrant" holds the same dark emotional connotation: we already have our ethnic slur, and we've even shortened it to "illegals" in modern dialect. In general use, many people will automatically assume anyone who speaks poor English and appears Mexican is here illegally, and will refer to them as such. I've been given to endure many tirades about violent crime, bad driving, and identity theft by people citing anyone who looks like they came from south-of-the-border as "illegals" without even checking their papers. Broad brushes and broad strokes.
We don't have a strictly-accurate, strictly-neutral term, either. We have more-neutral, incomplete terms and a brave new world of subtleties. Claiming a term is neutral because it is strictly-accurate is deceptive when culture has built an entire, complex meaning around that term not reflective of its semantics. John Moser (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Illegal Alien or Illegal Immigrant is no racial or ethnic slur since it lacks any description of race or ethnicity. Anyone residing in the U.S. who isn't a U.S. citizen can be an illegal alien due to lack of permission of residence, and as you well know, "American" itself is not a race or ethnicity. In fact, "Alien" is the exact opposite of "American" (anyone who is not an American citizen is an Alien), and any Alien lacking permission to stay, is an Alien who unlawfully (=illegal) stays in the country. So that is simply the proper and most accurate legal term. --Tscherpownik (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

"Policy"

As a reader, I'm confused about the status of this policy. If I understand the article correctly, then President Obama ordered "deferred action," which is sort of a euphemism for "a stay on deportations." Ok. Some people liked the policy, others didn't.

Fast forward. There was an inauguration and Trump became President. Again, some people like him and others don't. Regardless, is it sane to assume that a *policy* from the previous administration is still in effect following the transition of power? The article seems to allude to an expectation that President Obama's policies became President Trump's. Based on the few indicators we have, that's not the case.

65.154.106.61 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the following content was from Secure Communities and administrative immigration policies as off-topic. Please review it for merging into the present article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

On June 15, 2012, the Obama administration announced a policy of partial relief for a specified category of young immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.

The qualifications have been designed to resemble those of the DREAM Act, a law proposed to provide a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants, which has been repeatedly rejected by Congress. Persons affected by the new policy, upon applying, will be protected from deportation for a two-year period, with possible extensions, and will be eligible for work permits. To qualify, an applicant must, among other requirements:

  • have arrived in the United States before turning 16;
  • have lived in the country for at least 5 years;
  • be no more than 30 years old; and
  • have completed a high school education or GED.

The new policy is imposed by executive order and therefore stops well short of what the DREAM Act would provide. No US citizenship, permanent residency or amnesty are offered and individual outcomes will be discretionary (on case by case basis). Up to 1.7 million people are estimated to be eligible.

The administration's decision reflects its growing awareness of the crucial importance of Latino voters in the upcoming presidential election. President Obama, who supports the passage of the DREAM Act by Congress, has not made it one of his legislative priorities, in part because pushing through the legislation has not been seen as a realistic goal. While some immigrants may be reluctant to bring themselves to the attention of government authorities without assurance of obtaining benefits, the Department of Homeland Security announced its intention to focus deportation efforts on individuals who pose a considerable public safety risk, which has been the Department's official policy a number of months.[1]

This last objective has not been met, according to the critics of the administration's immigration policy, who say that many non-criminal persons who would be eligible for relief under the DREAM Act if it were passed have been continuously deported since John Morton's announcement of the policy change. The present executive order was demanded by Latino illegal immigrants and their supporters, who staged petitions, demonstrations and sit-ins.[2][3]

The implementation of the new program officially began on August 15, 2012. Applications were being accepted upon a payment of a $465 fee; according to White House officials, expenses will be paid from fees, with no cost to the taxpayer. The administrative job of processing applications was entrusted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, to avoid involvement of enforcement agencies, which could discourage some wary potential applicants. The information gathered from applicants is promised not to be shared with enforcement agencies.[4]

The initiative was expected to help the Obama administration with winning back Latino voters, many angered by the deportation of illegal immigrants. The Migration Policy Institute estimated about 1.2 million potential applicants to be immediately eligible, with further 500,000 reaching the eligibility age of 15 within the next few years.[4]

If an applicant fulfills the requirements and is approved, he or she will be able to apply for a work permit, social security card, driver's license and college financial aid, among other government benefits funded by US taxpayers.[4]

Because of the temporary nature of the benefits, the perceived risks (including revealing family members, such as parents, who may be undocumented) and other uncertainties, changing politics among them, many may choose not to apply, and the degree of eventual success and magnitude of the program are not being estimated yet.[4]

References

  1. ^ Julia Preston, John H. Cushman Jr. (2012-06-15). "Obama to Permit Young Migrants to Remain in U.S.". The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-08-17. 
  2. ^ Adriana Maestas (2012-06-14). "DREAMers to Obama: Executive Order Now". Politic365. Retrieved 2012-08-18. 
  3. ^ Adriana Maestas (2012-06-15). "Obama: OK – Let’s Protect DREAMers from Deportation". Politic365. Retrieved 2012-08-18. 
  4. ^ a b c d Julia Preston (2012-08-13). "Young Immigrants, in America Illegally, Line Up for Reprieve". The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-09-10. 

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

Please change the term "illegal alien(s)" to "undocumented immigrant(s)" or at the very least change "illegal alien(s)" to "undocumented alien(s)" throughout the article.

A person is not (and can never be) illegal, the act of coming to the United States without proper paperwork is an illegal act. To use the comparison some users have stated in the revision history - a person who shoplifts is not an illegal shopper. They are a shopper who has committed an illegal act. Therefore, someone who comes to the United States is not an illegal alien. They are an immigrant who has committed an illegal act. It is important to use people first language. Thank you. PDeckard (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Today's development

We're learning now that the Trump admin. is reportedly set to strike down some or all of DACA. It seems that we're going to want to update the article in some respect before Sept. 3? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Request to reduce to semi-protected

I agree. I have asked the administrator who protected the article to reduce it to semi-protection. --Chris Howard (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Chris Howard: I do not find your characterisation of the edit warring to be accurate. You can get consensus and then make one or several edit requests, as required, for changes needed to this article. Samsara 23:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Samsara: I stated that the edit warring was performed only by IP's or very recent "new users". Indeed the article has been edited, since its protection expiry on 17 Aug 2017, by IP's and by new User:Ajpd090, and – apart from an initial adding of two "see also" links – confirmed editors did nothing other than revert (most or all of) the IP changes. Therefore, there is no edit war among confirmed editors. Semi-protection should thus suffice. --Chris Howard (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Chris Howard: The edit war goes all the way back to July and also involves three autoconfirmed users. Now, do you actually have an edit to make, or are you just arguing for the sake of it? Samsara 11:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
No need for WP:PA. I am of the view that @Shawn in Montreal:'s statement needs a follow-up, whoever does the edits. Also the edit war up to July is not the point here, as my request does not put into question the protection of July. My request simply takes note that mere semi-protection would be sufficient now, as mere semi-protection would have been sufficient to avoid the edit war that subsequently ensued since Aug 17. --Chris Howard (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Also fail to see need for full protection. Semi - definitely. Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As expected since you are one of the three parties referred to above. Maybe we can substitute a community revert ban or some similar arrangement. Samsara 12:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we can get an admin who doesn't see it as their mission to enable disruptive IP accounts? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
"As expected since you are one of the three parties referred to above" - ah yes, the three reverts of IP edits I made on different days in July. That's "edit warring". Gimme a break. And you do realize that this is just ONE person, although using different IPs edit warring against several users, right? Or did you not bother to check? Also note what a different admin did in July [1]. That's right, they SEMI protected it, as appropriate, not full protected it, which is just dumb. And of course as soon as the semi- expired, the IP returned to resume their edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Just because you do not agree with someone, does not make them disruptive. I see no consensus on this page for your position. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
No, what makes them disruptive is that they're edit warring against multiple editors, engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and that they're basically a WP:SPA with only a ew edits while having mysteriously acquired in depth knowledge of Wikipedia policies, procedures and esoteric discussion pages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
What for? Since the lapse of the semi-protection of July 27 (and indeed in fact since even the beginning of July), there were only the following types of edits, apart from protection settings:
(1.) IP's repeatedly changed "undocumented" to "illegal" without consensus on the discussion page,
(2.) new user User:Ajpd09 performed wording changes without consensus,
(3.) these changes were reverted by a confirmed user, and
(4.) a confirmed user inserted two "see also" links.
The full protection (of Aug 10 and Aug 24) has effectively stopped confirmed users from editing the article without need. There has been no edit war among confirmed users, not even in July. In fact your characterisation "The edit war goes all the way back to July and also involves three autoconfirmed users" is misleading in that the three confirmed users did nothing other than to revert changes by IPs or new users that had no consensus. Thus both decisions of 10 Aug and of 24 Aug to fully protect the article were suboptimal in the sense that the protection was stonger than necessary (full rather than semi), and apparently also shorter than necessary (2 weeks only, but the EW appears to flare up immediately at every lapse). In summary: Please, I request you again @Samsara: to – please – change your protection of Aug 24 to semi-protection. Preferably, with prolonged semi-protection, but that's your judgement. --Chris Howard (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Chris. This is incompetence bordering on abuse of tools, particularly when the admin in questions starts threatening long standing users over nothing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@Samsara: Is there even a single disruptive edit of a confirmed user in all of August/July? --Chris Howard (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Protection was for edit warring. Samsara 19:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
"Edit warring" between long standing confirmed users and a bunch of throw away accounts and IP addresses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It's still edit warring. There is no consensus on this page for using "undocumented" 170.178.156.22 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes. It is edit warring by YOU (and all your IP accounts), against several established editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
And what evidence do you have that all the edits where made by one person? In fact they where not. The only reason to make that false claim is so that you can make the false claim that your veiw is the majority view.
The evidence is called "geolocate". Also, that all the IPs are SPAs which are making the exact same edits. Seriously? You gonna pretend otherwise? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Given that geolocation provides hits in at least 3 different states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois)for the given IP's, some in very close time proximity, I fail to see how that supports your claim.2600:1007:B005:F867:3D1E:7022:FF4B:88F9 (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, and which one are you with this account?  Volunteer Marek  18:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Good deflection. My ISP decided to switch me to an IP V6 address today without notice. Geolocation still shows that your accusation is false. 2600:1007:B00B:EEDE:3D1E:7022:FF4B:88F9 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek the majority consensus on the talk page is for Illegal. The only points given in opposition are, the AP style guide, vague assertions that using the term "illegal alien" is somehow derogatory, and misrepresentations that the word illegal in "illegal alien" somehow refers to the person themselves instead of their status. None of these look like strong enough reasons to use a euphemism contrary to wikipedia policy. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Maryland

The section about Maryland has inaccuracies. I request to change it to the following.

Baltimore's mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, has stated that Baltimore's city police will not check the citizenship status of people with whom they interact.[1]
Maryland residents are eligible for in-state public tuition rates regardless of immigration status if they attended Maryland high schools for at least three of the previous twelve years; graduated from a Maryland high school or received a Maryland GED within the previous ten years; registered at a Maryland public college within four years of high school graduation or receiving a Maryland GED; registered for Selective Service, if male; and filed Maryland income tax returns.[2][3][4]

~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Quackslikeaduck: That second paragraph loses its clarity towards the end. Would it be more succinct if you made several shorter sentences? Thanks. Samsara 00:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Samsara: How is this?
Maryland residents are eligible for in-state public tuition rates regardless of immigration status under certain conditions. A Maryland resident is eligible if they attended Maryland high schools for at least three of the previous twelve years and they graduated from a Maryland high school or received a Maryland GED within the previous ten years. They must have registered at a Maryland public college within four years of high school graduation or receiving a Maryland GED. They must have registered for Selective Service if male, and they must have filed Maryland income tax returns.[5][6][7]
~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done Added and credited to you. I made a small amendment to reflect the fact that, as the original text stated, Rawlings-Blake is not currently the mayor. Samsara 12:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wenger, Yvonne. "Mayor: Baltimore is a 'welcoming city' for immigrants and refugees". The Baltimore Sun. November 17, 2016.
  2. ^ Anderson, Nick; Lazo, Luz. "Md. voters approve ‘Dream Act’ law". The Washington Post. November 7, 2012.
  3. ^ "Maryland Dream Act: New Fall Student". Montgomery College. Retrieved August 31, 2017.
  4. ^ "Maryland Dream Act: New Fall 2017: I meet the requirements". Montgomery College. Retrieved August 31, 2017.
  5. ^ Anderson, Nick; Lazo, Luz. "Md. voters approve ‘Dream Act’ law". The Washington Post. November 7, 2012.
  6. ^ "Maryland Dream Act: New Fall Student". Montgomery College. Retrieved August 31, 2017.
  7. ^ "Maryland Dream Act: New Fall 2017: I meet the requirements". Montgomery College. Retrieved August 31, 2017.

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)

Protected edit request on 4 September 2017

Can "illegal students" in the second paragraph please be changed to "illegal immigrants"? It's contentious, especially if read as a noun phrase, and it places emphasis on students when DACA applies to students, graduates and veterans. RAN1 (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done, was superceded by another edit request below and does not seem needed now. Samsara 21:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, I agree with the OP. The phrase "illegal students" suggests that it is not their residency in the United States that is illegal, but their status as students. It is not illegal for them to attend school in the United States, which is what "illegal students" suggests. The Supreme Court has ruled, as recently as Plyer v. Doe, that education is a right of school age children, even those who are here illegally. (The Plyler decision had to do with the state of Texas charging tuition in their public schools for students who brought to this country illegally by their parents. These were not anchor babies, but children who, while dependent on their parents came to this country with their parents illegally. SCOTUS struck down the tuition laws, and maintained that the right to free education is enjoyed by every child, even those whose very presence in the U.S. is illegal.)
So, simply put, "illegal students" is not a thing. The phrase would more accurately be rendered as "illegal immigrants who are students." It is, perhaps a tad cumbersome. But it is not inaccurate, unlike the phrase, "illegal students." 65.33.138.115 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 September 2017

Please change all instances of "illegal immigrants" in this article to "undocumented immigrants." Calling people "illegal immigrants" puts emphasis on the citizenship status of a person in a country in very negative terms (i.e. illegal) which gives an automatic negative connotation to that person and their character. This is especially important in this article because people protected under DACA did not have a choice at their time of "illegally" entering the country. Changing "illegal immigrants" to "undocumented immigrants" gives a much more neutral connotation to this group of people, helping to avoid the possible formation of a bias against them, while still describing them accurately. I believe that this neutrality is especially important to preserve in sources such as Wikipedia, which should be an unbiased source of information. Thank you for your consideration! Sassysss (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please note #.22Illegal.22_vs._.22undocumented.22, #illegal_alien_vs_undocumented_immigrant, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#The_use_of_the_term_.22illegal_alien.22, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Full_prot_for_E.2FW_and_discussion_needing_closure_.28and_PS_about_Marek.29 and particularly that this article falls under WP:ARBAPDS. Samsara 21:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
One more time. That discussion only says that the term "illegal alien" is not BANNED on Wikipedia. It doesn't say whether that or "undocumented migrant" should be used. That needs to be decided on case by case basis. And an IP user aside, most editors here have supported using "undocumented migrant" on this article, partly for reasons articulated by Sassyss. So drop it Samsara.
I also feel obligated to point out that 1) if you're going to get involved in discussing the content, then please stop administratin' on this article, per WP:INVOLVED and 2) this comment of yours makes it appear as if you purposefully protected the IP's version of the page simply because that was the one you agreed with (and then extended full protection just to be spiteful). That would fall under abuse of administrative tools.
Oh, and those requests for edits are piling up. Since you thought it was such a great idea to fully protect this page (and then extend it for longer), how about you get on that? Volunteer Marek  03:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an admin but I've changed this to answered until there is evidence for consensus since it seems to be highly contentious (I mean seriously, not counting this, there seem to be at least 3 threads where the issue has came up all with recent discussion, 2 of them with it in the title), and is partly what resulted in the article being protected in the first place. Please remember the edit protected template should only be used for edits which are either clearly uncontentious or which have consensus. Please note that this is not an endorsement of either terminology, but rather reflective of the fact that wikipedia works by consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 September 2017

Remove the modifier "illegal" in "illegal students."

While we may never resolve the controversy of what term to use to refer to persons with no lawful status, we can at least agree that they're not illegally studying. Mauricio Maluff Masi (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done I've implemented that on the principle that removing the bone of contention is a frequently and successfully applied solution in other disputes, such as genre warring and the infobox person religion debate. Samsara 21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 September 2017

In the second paragraph the two sentences need to be swapped because the second sentence explains who the subject of the first sentence ("these students") is, the comma in the first sentence needs to be removed, and the timing of the events in the second sentence need to be clarified.

"The policy was created after acknowledgment that these students had been largely raised in the United States, and was seen as a way to remove immigration enforcement attention from "low priority" individuals with good behavior.[1] The illegal immigrant student population was rapidly increasing; approximately 65,000 illegal immigrant students graduate from U.S. high schools on a yearly basis.[2]"

should become something like

"The illegal immigrant student population was rapidly increasing; approximately 65,000 illegal immigrant students graduate from U.S. high schools on a yearly basis.[3] The policy was created after acknowledgment that these students had been largely raised in the United States and was seen as a way to remove immigration enforcement attention from "low priority" individuals with good behavior.[4]" Rscragun (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Stottlemyre, Scott (2015). "Strict Scrutiny for Illegal Childhood Arrivals". The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice – via EBSCOhost. 
  2. ^ Adams, Angela (2015). "ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION FOR ILLEGAL AND "DACAMENTED" STUDENTS: THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS". Indiana International & Comparative Law Review. 
  3. ^ Adams, Angela (2015). "ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION FOR ILLEGAL AND "DACAMENTED" STUDENTS: THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS". Indiana International & Comparative Law Review. 
  4. ^ Stottlemyre, Scott (2015). "Strict Scrutiny for Illegal Childhood Arrivals". The Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice – via EBSCOhost. 

U.S. President Donald Trump is expected...

Does Wikipedia include "expected" information, or should we wait until the official announcement? News organizations report "news" based on unnamed sources but should Wikipedia? In many cases, the official news differs from what was reported based on unnamed sources.

user:mnw2000 13:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions Announces End To DACA Immigrant Application Policy

Attorney General made the announcement.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Q7RFK96fE

Protected edit request on 5 September 2017

"On June 16, 2017, the United States Department of Homeland Security announced that it would rescind the executive action taken by the Barack Obama administration that expanded the DACA program, though the DACA program's overall existence would continue to be reviewed.[15][16]" 195.77.54.81 (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that this sort of updating to the article is obviously called for. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this article is wildly out of date. President Trump and Attorney General Sessions made announcements today that are fundamental changes to the Executive Order. There is no need to leave out these important developments. The New York Times is reporting today: "President Trump on Tuesday ordered an end to the Obama-era executive action that shields young undocumented immigrants from deportation, calling the program an “amnesty-first approach” and urging Congress to replace it with legislation before it begins phasing out on March 5, 2018." AND the NY Times says this: Trump "dispatched his attorney general to announce that the government will no longer accept new applications from undocumented immigrants to shield them from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA." Michael D. Shear & Julie Hirschfeld Davis. Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act, New York Times, September 5, 2017. Please update the article.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm making a request. The page needs to be updated.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I put in a request at WP:RPP to decrease the protection level of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile I will edit through the protection to add a brief note about the program being rescinded. I agree thatt needs to be in there. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The full protection is ridiculous

It's shambolic to prevent edits on the page at a time when a record number of readers are reading this page and every major news outlet is focusing on DACA and providing info that would naturally be added to the page. All because some IP numbers tried to change the terminology on the page? Ridiculous. The full protection has done permanent damage to the page, as I and many other editors have been unable to add content to it. I'm not familiar with Wiki norms and policy, but surely the full protection of this page during the most integral week of the page's existence must stand as THE textbook example of how NOT to protect Wikipedia pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

We're working on getting protection lowered. It still needs some protection from IP vandals. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

End of Program

On September 5, 2017, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the end of program's applications for immigrants.[1][2][3][4] The program will be phased out over a six month period.[5] JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC) JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 September 2017

Section needs to be added noting that the program ended.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC) JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done I agree, it needs to be in there. I will add a brief notice. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Question for all of you

With the dramatic news today many of you are eager to edit the article. As an admin I added a brief note about the announcement, but clearly more could be said. I see many calls for the protection to be lowered. I have a question for you: if the protection is lowered, would you all agree to drop the "illegal vs. undocumented" war, not to make any edits to the article on that question for a few days? I think that is probably the only condition under which it is likely to be lifted.

In the meantime, I am open to reasonable requests to add necessary and uncontroversial material to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I have endorsed the request at Requests for Page Protection (I'm not going to implement it myself because I am now WP:INVOLVED here), with the proviso that if even ONE person does an edit changing "illegal" to "undocumented" or vice versa, the full protection will be restored. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Small price to pay for lowering protection, I guess. (FWIW, I was not involved in any of the edit warring before the article was locked up.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
A very sensible suggestion, MelanieN, for unblocking the situation. (I was also not involved in any of the edit warring before the article was locked.) And to prevent users from doing such an edit inadvertently – without having noticed the agreement – it may make sense to insert an edit comment after each occurrence of "illegal"/"undocumented" in the text. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The full protection has expired. I put on semi-protection for now. We'll see what Samsara has to say. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

While it's fine to hold off on changing the "undocumented" vs. "illegal" language, this is still something that we need to address. The issue is not going to go away so we might as well keep discussing it while we make other edits to the article.
In particular, while it is debatable whether "illegal alien" is appropriate at OTHER articles, here it clearly isn't. Specifically, the individuals covered by DACA have legal permission to reside in the US. That's the whole point of DACA. They are not "illegal aliens". They are people who entered the country illegally (more precisely their parents brought them in illegally) but their current status is not "illegal". Even with Trump rescinding DACA, since they still got 6 months. So yes, the wording needs to be changed. Volunteer Marek  16:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Definitely keep discussing it! I was just warning against resuming the edit warring at the article, which is likely to result in a renewal of the full protection. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently no one wants to discuss it. Maybe because previously it was just a single IP editor insisting on the inappropriate wording. So I'm going to change it. Volunteer Marek  04:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

And of course once the edit is made the IP addresses immediately show up to revert. Why the fug isn't this article under permanent semi-protection or pending changes? It is extremely unfair to regular editors to place an article under a 1RR restriction/DS and then leave it open for IP addresses to run wild on it. Also very stupid. Volunteer Marek  08:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit requests

Edit requests: Add all the studies on DACA from the 'Illegal immigration to the United States' page:
Thanks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm going to hold off on that. It's nothing new; there is no such urgency that it needs to be added through full protection. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I would like to see a more neutral stance on this article. I believe it is very left wing written with little sources on why it could be harmful to an economy or why republicans feel it is necessary to cut this program. --Amillard (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The Republican perspective about the dangers of DACA is already present in the article. What's not present is some pseudoscience to defend the Republican perspective. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 September 2017

Please consider changing instances of "illegal immigrants" to "undocumented persons/people" as this is the preferred terminology. 73.79.234.131 (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done There is a discussion on this subject, above; please discuss it there. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 5 September 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)

Images from today's protest

Not sure they would be appropriate to add (at this point, at least), so won't be adding them myself, but for anyone interested there are some images from today's DACA-related protest at Trump Tower on Commons here: commons:Category:Protest against the DACA rescission in New York (5 September 2017). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. After the protection is lifted we will be able to report the protests, and the images would be helpful then. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I just added the top-level Commons category to the page, though the nesting of that category is a bit strange right now. I should have some San Francisco protest photos up by this afternoon (PDT). Funcrunch (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I added one from New York and one from SF. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

Based on my, and other immigration lawyers', execution of the new policy with clients, I propose the following change for specificity and clarity. The implementation has occurred- it just applies differently to different groups of individuals.

Change: On September 5, 2017, DACA was rescinded by the Trump administration, but implementation was delayed six months to give Congress time to come up with a solution for the population that was previously eligible for DACA.

To: On September 5, 2017, DACA was rescinded by the Trump administration. The DACA program ended immediately for first-time applicants if their application was not received by USCIS by the end of the day. The Trump administration stated implementation was delayed for six months to give Congress time to come up with a solution for the population that was previously eligible for DACA. However, this delay only applies to current DACA recipients whose Employment Authorization Documents ("EAD") expire between September 5, 2017 and March 5, 2018. Options for DACA recipients whose status expires after March 5, 2018 is uncertain, as they were not mentioned in the Executive Order or announcement by Attorney General Sessions.

Citations: Rescission of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children”, United States Department of Homeland Security, September 5, 2017. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/memorandum-rescission-daca

Frequently Asked Questions: Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA), United States Department of Homeland Security, September 5, 2017. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/frequently-asked-questions-rescission-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca Aerojovi (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I think most of them have been implemented by the request immediately below this one. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

Added the year (2017) to deadline for clarity for those seeking information. Change "DACA permits" to "DACA status and Employment Authorization Documents ("EAD")" since DACA is not a permit, but work authorization is. Change "DACA recipients with a permit" to "DACA recipients with a work permit" to clarify. Change "set to expire before March 5, 2018" to "set to expire on or before March 5, 2018" per DHS FAQ released 9/5/2017. Change "if they do so by October 5." To: "if their application is received by USCIS by October 5, 2017." This is an important distinction since renewal applications cannot be postmarked October 5, 2017 and still be accepted. They must be received.

Change: Sessions added that implementation will be suspended for six months, and DACA permits that expire during the next six months will continue to be renewed: DACA recipients with a permit set to expire before March 5, 2018 are to have the opportunity to apply for a two-year renewal if they do so by October 5.

To: Sessions added that implementation will be suspended for six months, and DACA status and Employment Authorization Documents ("EAD") that expire during the next six months will continue to be renewed. DACA recipients with a work permit set to expire on or before March 5, 2018 are to have the opportunity to apply for a two-year renewal if their application is received by USCIS by October 5, 2017. Aerojovi (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestions. They may seem nit-picky, but it's important for our article to be accurate. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2017

2600:6C54:4E00:117:993D:2463:F467:5823 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Information contained on this page is biased.

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. — IVORK Discuss 22:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Correction required to misleading information.

The article states (Daniel) "Ramirez Medina's release followed on March 29.[36]"

The Article states Ramirez Medina 'was released' however he was 'released on bond' of $15,000 as cited in the link [36] provided. By not including the condition of his release it suggests an unconditional release.

Capsman99 (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"why" tags

The middle of encyclopedia article's text is NOT the place to inquire or ask questions that one fancies. As such the "why" tags added to the article recently were spurious. If there is pertinent information out there (as some of the edit summaries asserted) then add that information. Volunteer Marek  09:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Volunteer Marek: Not really, that's exactly why the tags exist in the first place. Please see {{why}} and WP:EDIT, a policy. This is not someone "fancying" about something. This is about NPOV and providing accurate information to our readers. Please be careful about what you express regarding other people's actions and remember WP:AGF. Furthermore, please be careful about qualifying something as "spurious" and remain civil; keep those types of descriptors to yourself, they dont belong in Wikipedia. There is a reason why President Obama wanted to expand DACA and there is a reason why several states opposed such expansion. The information is out there and these tags signal our editors to include it. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Putting aside that the tags are sort of silly to begin with, none of the instances where added them "require clarification". This is more like just asking "why?" randomly. Qualifying something as "spurious" is perfectly appropriate in this instance and there's nothing incivil about that. Those "descriptions" are the stated reason for removal of the spurious tags so, no, I'm not gonna "keep it to myself". I also don't appreciate the passive-aggressive and threatening tone you've chosen to adopt.
If you think that there's a reason why something or other, then... why aren't you adding it to the article?  Volunteer Marek  21:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Once again, please be careful on how you describe actions performed by other editors. The tags are not silly because the article does not explain why the different actors took a certain action. It only says that they did. As an encyclopedia we must explain why they took a certain stance. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out to you, WP:EDIT, a policy, states that, "Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary." That's exactly what I did. I ask you once again to remain WP:CIVIL and to exercise care on the way that you describe other editors actions. Calling things silly, spurious, or passive-aggressive is a personal attack and a violation of policy. I implore you to please review WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear. The "why" tags are silly in general, no matter how and where they're used. "As an encyclopedia" we must follow reliable sources. We may or may not "explain" depending on the topic and issue. Volunteer Marek  02:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Once again, you really should exercise care on how you express yourself. As has already been mentioned to you twice, WP:EDIT, a policy, not only establishes that the use of such tags is permissible but encourages their use. I think that you have an opinion that such tags are 'silly.' But that's your opinion and our policies disagree with it. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What IS a "Why" Tag?

Is this discussion referring to the two puzzle piece w images, next to the comments concerning "missing information about the quantitative and qualitative differences between the states," etc.?
I would not go so far to call the requested additional information "spurious," but the labels used are annoying to readers of the article. It does not seem to me that the requested information is critical enough to warrant such an obtrusive marking. Anyone who wants to expand on or compare & contrast the views and actions of individual states on DACA can do so directly via edits to the page. If this aspect is deemed somehow quite central to the article (contrary to the view I just stated), then why not raise the matter here in the talk page? (Instead of cluttering up the article with such boxes). Then one could explore (in the talk page here) what is meant by "quantitative and qualitative differences" etc. and contributors could thereby work more collaboratively to enhance and expand the article. -Drewkeeling (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Except that WP:NPOV, WP:PILLARS, the Council of Foreign Relations, and several other sources disagree with you. Our job is to present a neutral point of view and both sides of the arguments. Furthermore, as an encyclopedia our job is to present the whole picture. Fortunately, one of the tags has already been expanded. For instance, in adhering to NPOV, did you know that the plaintiffs explicitly mentioned in their lawsuit that the issue was not about immigration but about "the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution"? Yet, this article never explained that, focused solely on the academic research on DACA, all while ignoring the plaintiffs arguments.. even though reliable sources are available for all that. This is why we use tags like those. So that other editors can further expand the article. If you don't like them I believe there is an option in the user preferences to not show them. But WP:EDIT not only permits their use, it also encourages them. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't conflate actual research with analysis done by journalists

This article currently features text of research published in top journals (Science, Lancet, Journal of Public Economics) and journalists describing what existing research says and what experts on the topics are saying. In the lede, one editor added "The impact of DACA was extensively analyzed by scholars, think tanks, and journalists. For instance,..."[2] before a section that explains what the research on the topic is. There are three problems with this:

  • 1: The sentence is superfluous. Why do we need a sentence to explain that the topic has been studied when we list studies on the topic immediately afterwards? Who would assume, in the absence of this sentence, that the topic has not been studied?
  • 2: It conflates the top academic research on this done by academics with some vague "analysis" by not only academics, but also think-tanks (which are often seen as partisan) and journalists (who are not experts on these topics; it's also unclear if this is reporting by journalists or op-eds by journalists).
  • 3: The sentence is also misleading and adds uncertainty as to what precisely the content that follows is (it does more to confuse readers than help them). The "for instance" could mislead readers into thinking this is a random assortment of findings and that there are a bunch of other studies that we are not mentioning (believe me, this is pretty much all the research on DACA). The conflating of academics with think tanks and journalists could cast doubt as to the veracity of the findings and the thoroughness of the research. Is the content a bunch op-eds by random think tank people and journalists or actual studies and RS reporting on the academic literature. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's called a topic sentence. It's irrelevant who conducted the analysis. If journalists and think tanks conducted an analysis and we use references to their works in the content then a topic sentence like explains exactly what comes next. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the initial "Research shows..." sentence is much better, and simpler, than the lengthy version, and avoids the problems outlined by Snooganssnoogans. Neutralitytalk 22:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
But that's not a topic sentence. It only describes two findings and the paragraph as a whole talks about several different findings. I think your concern is more about the verb used and the actors. So perhaps, we can change the verb and the actors? Something like, "The impact on DACA has been widely published in several mediums."? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
That's even worse and more vague. The original is fine. Neutralitytalk 22:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Nah, the original is pretty bad, because it's not even a topic sentence to begin with. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Typo

"On March 7 22-year-old Daniela Vargas of Jackson, Mississippi, another DACA recipient was to detained by ICE"

Please be prompt when you lock people out.

Done and thanks for your report. However if you want people to be prompt, it would help greatly if you're clearer on exactly what change is needed rather than just saying typo and quoting the original sentence. A simple, "please remove 'to' between was and detained" would be about as many words as a request to be prompt. Also if you use the edit request process, people may be more likely to notice you request. Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Misunderstanding concerning EO's

"On June 16, 2017, the United States Department of Homeland Security announced that it intended to repeal the executive order by the Barack Obama administration"

I could not find any executive orders establishing DACA in the Federal Register.

I also feel that administrations are unable to subscribe to orders. I couldn't find the text of the instrument used to establish DACA, so I don't really know who is responsible for establishing it. Normal and official executive orders are subscribed by the President alone.

This should be fixed a bit to clarify that it's not a true EO that has been listed in the register. Perhaps the term "executive action" would be more accurate. That would keep people from searching for an EO that doesn't exist.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.5.35.132 (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you on the general point, unfortunately a lot of sources do refer to Obama's 2012 executive order. The DHS memo for example talks about rescinding the 2012 memo, not an executive order. [3]. Our Deferred Action for Parents of Americans also says that case did not involve an executive order, although it's unsourced. I finally found [4]/[5] from the Congressional Research Service which does specifically note DACA did not involved an executive order per se. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the problem is how the article states that the policy was established. It's very clear from the rose garden speech that this policy was established by the 15jun2012 memo from Napolitano. It's quite difficult to believe that such a speech would qualify as an establishment of a selective enforcement policy. It would be nice to clarify this by presenting the memo earlier, in the "establishment" section, rather than merely placing the memo in the "implementation" section. The cited Politico sources neglect to support the notion that an executive order was to be repealed. The last two FAQ links you posted will work very well in the establishment section, since this is clearly expressed on its face. The FAQ also verifies that this was established by the DHS. Here is the relevant portion:
"How was DACA established?
The DACA initiative was announced by former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano in a June 15, 2012, DHS memorandum entitled, “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.” The DACA initiative was not established by executive order."
Thanks for finding the FAQ, that helps tremendously!

Recission of the DACA memo

I thought it would be appropriate to include a source to the press release following the statement, "In 2017 Trump decided to end it."

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/memorandum-rescission-daca HealthUp (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Request revert of confirmed content

I need this diff to be reverted please. User alleges that the clause "Several months later and in response to the courts determinations" is "unconfirmed" but the memo published by DHS rescinding the DACA expansions proves otherwise:

I have considered a number of factors, including the preliminary injunction in this matter, the ongoing litigation, the fact that DACA never took effect, and our new immigration enforcement priorities. After consulting with the Attorney General, and in the exercise of my discretion in establishing national immigration enforcement policies, I hereby rescind the November 20, 2014 memorandum.

I don't mind if the clause is changed to, "Several months later and after considering several factors, including a preliminary injunction issued by the courts,"

Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 18:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@SparklingPessimist: the article is under a WP:1RR as imposed by ArbCom. Hence why I am asking someone else to perform the reverts. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The article is not protected, so the semi-protected edit request is invalid. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Request revert of factual content

I need this diff to be reverted please. User alleges that the clause "is simply not true and not in accord with the rest of the article. DACA itself was not rescinded "a few months after its establishment". It is not rescinded now although a deadline has been set as explained in the next paragraph." But this is false and the memo published by DHS rescinding DACA proves otherwise:

I hereby rescind the June 15, 2012 memorandum.

This statement in effect rescinded DACA. What the user alleges are simply additional orders given by the DHS Secretary but DACA is rescinded.

Furthermore, since it seems the user misread the clause, I suggest to use the following clause instead: "Several months after its establishment DACA was challenged in courts and rescinded."

Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 18:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@SparklingPessimist: the article is under a WP:1RR as imposed by ArbCom. Hence why I am asking someone else to perform the reverts. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: please stop reverting this information and familiarize yourself with the memorandum that rescinded DACA. Yes, the DHS Secretary proclaimed several additional provisions but DACA is officially rescinded. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree: DACA is rescinded, with implementation delayed for six months. That's exactly what our article says. I was in the process of explaining my edit here, but we edit-conflicted: I concur with removing the "fails verification" tag because the information is verified by multiple sources, including one cited on that very sentence. I do NOT agree with the addition of the sentence "Several months after its establishment" and removed it, because it is contradicted by other information in the same paragraph. DACA was established in 2012. Court challenges came in 2014 and were directed at the proposed expansion of DACA, not DACA itself. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. The proposed sentence "Several months after its establishment DACA was challenged in courts and rescinded" - the sentence I removed - is wrong or misleading in multiple ways. 1) As I noted above, DACA was not "challenged in court several months after its creation"; court challenges came several years after DACA was created, and were directed at the expansion, not at DACA itself. 2) "...and rescinded" implies that it was rescinded several months after its establishment, which is false. 3) Furthermore, "challenged in courts and rescinded" implies that DACA was rescinded as a result of court action, which is false. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but this statement: "DACA is rescinded, with implementation delayed for six months" is not true. Please familiarize yourself with the aformentioned memo. DHS is no longer accepting any new DACA requests at all. Furthermore, as explained in an edit summary, the reference provided states that, "The administration also announced a plan to continue renewing permits for anyone whose status expires in the next six months[.]" But that is not what this article says. This article says that "implementation of the rescission was delayed six months to give Congress time to decide how to deal with the population that was previously eligible under the policy" which is simply not true, DACA was rescinded, period. Please provide reliable sources that support that sentence.
Second, DACA was rescinded several months after its establishment. The policy was established in June 2012 and rescinded in September 2017. Several months have passed between those two periods. Perhaps you would prefer to use the noun 'years' instead?
Finally, DACA was rescinded as a result of court action. Once again, please familiarize yourself with the memo that rescinded DACA. It says, and I quote, "Taking into consideration the Supreme Court’s and the Fifth Circuit’s rulings in the ongoing litigation [...] I hereby rescind the June 15, 2012 memorandum." I think that you are mixing the two clauses together and inferring that it was rescinded by the court which is not implied in the text. It simply states that it was rescinded and that before such rescission that it was challenged.
question mark Suggestion Perhaps a better sentence to alleviate your concerns would be, "Several years after its establishment, DACA was rescinded after the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security took into consideration several factors." What do you think?
Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
There is no need for this kind of sentence at all. It adds nothing. The information is already there in the paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph of the lede

User:‪Ahnoneemoos‬: Let's talk this out, as we are supposed to. You went ahead and added a version of this sentence of yours anyhow, in spite of our discussion here. Two sentences in fact, added to the first paragraph of the lede. Your edit summary was "rewriting lead; moving most important concepts to the front." You added

The policy was established by the Obama administration in June 2012 in order to provide prosecutorial discretion to federal agencies with limited resources. Several years later, however, the Trump administration rescinded the policy after taking into consideration two court rulings, a litigation against it, and a letter from the attorney general.[1]

I replaced the vague "several years later" with "in 2017", and I removed the "taking into consideration" stuff. My edit summary was "removing vague "several years"; removing justifications (litigation was only threatened; letter from the attorney general is still part of the Trump administration)"

You then tagged it {{why?}}, saying ‪"why is it OK to justify the establishment of the policy but not the rescission? there is a reason why the Trump administration rescinded the policy and it's explicitly explained in the memo but several users continue to remove this text‬." Well, in the first place, you were the one who added a justification for the establishment of the policy; IMO it is feeble, and it offers a reason that is nowhere found in the article text, and I would suggest we remove it as well. And in the second place, your choice of justifications for rescission was poor, as I explained in my edit summary. And in the third place, the justifications both for instituting the policy and rescinding it are explained in detail in the text, and that's where that kind of detail belongs - not the lede. So I propose removing the justifications both FOR the policy and AGAINST the policy from the lede paragraph. I would suggest we simply make the last sentence of the first paragraph read "The policy was established by the Obama administration in June 2012 and rescinded by the Trump administration in September 2017." There is additional information about the attempted expansion, lawsuits, and rescission in the next paragraph of the lede, and details in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • no Disagree WP:LEDE says that, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." The reasons behind the establishing and rescinding of DACA are the most important contents of the article. Not the protests, not the research, not partisan politics. But why the decision-makers acted the way they did. For instance, the concept of 'prosecutorial discretion' is the core driver behind DACA. So is the constitution and the rule of law behind its rescission. The sentence I added is not feeble as it is extracted from the DHS memo; in particular, from these two continous sentence: "Taking into consideration the Supreme Court’s and the Fifth Circuit’s rulings in the ongoing litigation, and the September 4, 2017 letter from the Attorney General, it is clear that the June 15, 2012 DACA program should be terminated. In the exercise of my authority in establishing national immigration policies and priorities, except for the purposes explicitly identified below, I hereby rescind the June 15, 2012 memorandum." That's the reason why Acting Secretary Duke rescinded DACA. This was nowhere to be found in the article until I added it. But you removed it. Why would remove such a critical piece of information I don't understand. NPOV says our job is to present both points of view. And that's exactly what my additions did. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
If the reasons cited in the HHS memo are "the most important contents" and "a critical piece of information" as you contend, how have we gotten along this far without them even being mentioned in the text - much less the lede? Anyhow, from a Wikipedia policy point of view, what you cited are the wrong reasons. Our article goes into great detail about what Attorney General Sessions said about why it was being rescinded. That's what Reliable Sources focused on, so that's what we focus on. You are trying to make a primary document be our most important source, and that's not how Wikipedia works. You could add this material about Duke's memo to the Rescission section of the text, and in fact that would be a good idea. But if we are going to give any reason for rescission in the lede (which I oppose), it should be the reasons we got from Sessions, per our Independent Reliable Source requirement. (Nit picks: Your sentence says "the Trump administration relied... on a letter from the attorney general"; that makes no sense; the attorney general is PART of the Trump administration. You mean that the acting secretary of HS relied on a letter from Sessions. But all of that is details way down in the weeds, not suitable for the lede. Also, the memo does mention two court decisions but I don't think the memo mentions "a litigation against it"; at that point the only litigation was against the expansion, with multiple states threatening to take legal action regarding DACA itself IF it wasn't rescinded by Sept. 5. Again, way too deep in the weeds and not suitable for the lede.) Likewise, we could expand upon "prosecutorial discretion" in the article text, but "prosecutorial discretion" was just the mechanism; it was not the reason for doing it.
Bottom line: I already removed the addition of justifications for rescission; I propose also removing the justification for creating the program that was added to the lede, leaving the single sentence I proposed above. And I would like to hear from other people on this issue. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
You just defeated your own argument since we actually have mentioned the reasons behind the original DHS memo; it's in the background section: "The policy [...] was seen as a way to remove immigration enforcement attention from "low priority" individuals with good behavior." That's prosecutorial discretion; the basis for this whole thing. Furthermore, in this particular case, you are ignoring certain aspects of WP:PRIMARY. In particular, that policy establishes that, "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia." Sessions gave a recommendation to the DHS Acting Secretary, but it was the Acting Secretary the one that actually rescinded the policy. Furthermore, she cites very specific reasons as to why she made the decision and it was not because of Session's recommendation only. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
And just in case, here's an independent secondary reliable source on the reasons behind repealing DACA [6]: "As attorney general, it is my duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are enforced and that the constitutional order is upheld." Sessions also lambasted Obama for implementing an "unconstitutional exercise of authority[.]" It seems to me that you are the one nitpicking certain facts and ignoring others. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
My intention is not to "nitpick certain facts and ignore others"; it is to ignore them ALL. As I have said all along, I think we should not mention anything about reasons in the lede. Not reasons to create the policy, not reasons to rescind it. The reasons are too numerous and too complex to condense into a few phrases as you are trying to do - a process which inevitably results in arguments about what reasons to include and what not to include. Simple solution: don't include ANY reasons in the lede. Put them in the text where they can be spelled out at whatever length is appropriate. And that is what I want to hear from other editors here: not so much "what reasons should we list in the lede?" but rather "should we list any reasons in the lede at all?" (BTW I think one thing we learned from the Comey dismissal is that the reasons spelled out in official documents and letters may not be the real reasons for taking that action.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you and I are going to agree, so let's allow other editors to chime in. In the meantime I won't re-add the reasons for the rescission but I ask in return that the why tag is left in place. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I see that the "why" tag has been removed by a third party, with the edit summary "explained in reference and body of article". --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, which begs the question why the third party didn't remove the justification for Obama's administration, since that, too, is explained in the article. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The third party did not remove any justifications. They just removed the "why?" tag that you had added, since they apparently felt it was unneeded or inappropriate. But since you bring up the justification for the Obama administration, I will remove it also - while we continue to discuss here (and hopefully attract some third opinions) whether any of such content belongs in the lede or not. I would have removed it earlier, at the same time as I removed the justification for rescission, except that I didn't notice it had been recently added; I thought it was longstanding content, which I am more cautious about removing. And then when I realized it was part of the same problem, I was temporarily barred from removing it by 1RR. But that time is past and I will remove it for consistency. The bottom line is that both justification phrases were added recently, by you, and were "challenged via reversion," by me, and now per DS we are discussing whether to reinstate that material to the lede or not. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Meanwhile I encourage you to add this material that you feel is important to the article text. The 2017 DHS memo certainly should be cited in more detail in the Rescission section. The 2012 DHS memo is already cited in the Establishment section, but more could be added. --MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why this needs to be even discussed since this is already codified in our best practices, ie: WP:LEDE. Here are some excerpts FYI:
"A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell, and also cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows."
"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
"[...] do not hint at startling facts without describing them."
"The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic"
The current lede does not conform to our best practices. It does not explain why the Obama administration established this policy, nor does it explain why it decided to expand it, nor does it explain why the states sued against that expansion, nor does it explain why the courts sided with the states on that lawsuit, nor does it explain why the Trump administration, after said ruling, rescinded the policy.
I don't see anyone else invoking our policies and guidelines on this.
Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This will be my last reply to you since I think it is the wall-of-text between the two of us that is keeping others from discussing this. Your interpretation of a policy does not make it policy. Nothing in those quotes you just cited requires us to try to explain WHY everybody did what they did. Our article does all the things those quotes say it should do. It is just your opinion that the reasons for enacting a policy (which would take an entire section to explain) must be summarized in the lede. The truth is that trying to explain in the lede why a policy was enacted is not part of our standard approach to such articles. A few examples: Clean Power Plan, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Executive Order 13769, etc. - it has not been our usual practice to try to explain the rationale for a policy in the lede. Meanwhile, I am baffled why you aren't adding this material (which you consider to be so vital) into the article text. Nothing is stopping you. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from people other than Ahnoneemoos and MelanieN

This section is for other people to comment on the question of whether the lede should summarize reasons for the enactment of the DACA policy and its rescission. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Request revert of sourced content

I would like this diff to be reverted please. The user alleges that this is "some shit that some politicians allege" and to not "conflate research with partisan rhetoric." But this is neither, since it's the argument used by the plaintiffs in Texas v. United States which was admitted in court by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and which is sourced through the Council of Foreign Relations, a reliable source.

Here are some excerpts from the lawsuit filed, for @Snooganssnoogans:'s convenience:

Page 24: The Plaintiff States will be forced to expend substantial resources on law enforcement, healthcare, and education.

Page 25: Other costs follow specifically from the extension of deferred action status. For instance, federal work authorization functions as a precondition for certain professional licenses in the Plaintiff States.

As this text is neither "some shit that some politicians allege" nor "partisan rhetoric" as the user alleges, the text must be reincorporated in the article.

This request is made per the WP:1RR rule that governs this article.

Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Everything alleged in a lawsuit isn't fact. Lawsuits aren't RS. To contrast the unsubstantiated claims of some Republican governors and attorney generals (the plaintiffs) with the best academic research available is inane. Just as it would be inane to contrast the research with whatever it is that Democratic governors and attorney generals are alleging in their pro-DACA lawsuits against the Trump administration. If you desperately want to insert partisan rhetoric into the lede, feel free to add a paragraph to the lede (provided that the main body covers this at some length) where proponents of DACA say it's good for the economy, moral etc. and opponents say it's unconstitutional, bad for the economy etc. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the plaintiffs arguments to have standing. The court doesn't accept arguments "just because;" they need to be well substantiated. The Council of Foreign Relations—a reliable source—explains this very well in the publication referenced in the text you removed:
Do Texas and the other states have standing to sue the federal government? In other words, can the states demonstrate that the president’s programs, if implemented, would cause them significant financial harm? The appellate court in this case—the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—found the states had legal standing.
Scholars are not the only ones that do research y'know?
Please refrain from accusing me of this and that, remain WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.
Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Please find any RS that substantiate that DACA causes significant financial harm to states. So far you have this "research" (a claim by a plaintiff that met the threshold for "legal standing") that has gone through the "peer-review" of a panel of judges (these judges are presumably all experts on this topic and would be readily accepted as peer-reviewers in any top journal on this subject) and meets "legal standing", whatever goes into determining that. It should be incredibly easy to find other RS to substantiate this if true, instead of relying on this indirect vague nonsense, given that the effects of DACA have been extensively covered by RS in the last weeks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It might be a good idea for you to research what legal standing entails. But here it is, from The Atlantic:
"Texas and the other states contend that by granting deferred action to an estimated five million undocumented immigrants, the Obama administration’s executive actions force the states to either provide services to them or change their state laws to avoid doing so. Texas, the only state whose standing was explicitly recognized by the court, specifically argued that the immigrants’ “lawful presence” would require the state to provide them with “state-subsidized driver’s licenses”and unemployment insurance."
"[...] two judges sided with the states and the lower court in Texas, citing both the impact on Texas and the breadth of the Obama administration's changes [...]"
Anything else?
Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thankfully, we don't allow original research or require that editors sleuth what legal concepts entail so that they can synthesize text. That's how poorly sourced, vague or misleading BS gets into articles. For instance, is it enough for the GOP governors to simply demonstrate that DACA requires them to provide some services to immigrants? Do they have to demonstrate net negative fiscal costs? Who knows? If it's the former, then it's so obvious that it doesn't belong in the article. If it's the latter, then a bunch of judges have absolutely no ability to determine if it's accurate, as they are not economists. Just as we don't let judges adjudicate whether climate change is occurring. There's a reason why lawsuits and rulings never get cited by social scientists seeking to determine causality. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Sigh, here's the definition of standing from Cornell: "that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable." The Fifth Circuit of Appeals affirmed that the plaintiffs had standing; in other words, as the reference from the Council of Foreign Relations explains, that the plaintiffs demonstrated that they would sustain harm because of the policy. Source: Fifth Circuit ruling, page 2: "Reviewing the district court’s order for abuse of discretion, we affirm the preliminary injunction because the states have standing[.]" It's as simple as that. Like I mentioned before, scholars are not the only ones that do research. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

False Claim Needs Correction!: "Economists agree no adverse effects to US economy due to DACA"

In the introduction, the claim that "economists agree that there are no adverse effects of DACA on the US economy" is false. This needs to be corrected, and I hope someone in the community (not prevented 'by the lock') will take this up. The false claim is in the introduction. Numerous studies demonstrate that, like with many other elements, reduced shortage of labor supply (spurred by more undocumented workers and/or by legalized formally illegal/undocumented workers (i.e. DACA) can lower production costs, helping wealthy business owners and immigrants, but there is an equally pernicious depressing effect on low-income and low-skilled wages for extant citizens in the US. Some even suggest that this preferentially undermines Hispanic and Black citizen wages. Also, the elasticity of capital supply and substitution among inputs of production play a decisive factor in how and to whom the costs and benefits of immigration employment (and legalization of existing illegal/undocumented labor force members (DACA)) accrue/fall. You can't factually claim that there are no adverse economic effects of DACA on the US economy. It is patently false. There may be benefits, but it is not the case that there are no adverse economic effects.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/IZA2013.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4902:6153:8483:DB0C:9677:AE18 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The claim is sourced. Neither of your sources are about DACA. As for the economics of immigration, Borjas is a minority view. The academic literature shows mixed effects for low-skilled natives but these effects, whether they are positive or negative, are small either way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
At a minimum, this sentence should be removed "Fact-checkers note that there are no reasons to believe that DACA has a major adverse impact on native-born American workers." None of the 3 sources contain anything supporting that sentences. Further, the economic impact of policies can rarely be "fact checked." The sentence is not only unsupported but inherently biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKG990 (talkcontribs) 01:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
As the person who wrote that sentence, I'm 99% sure that one or all three sources say that almost literally. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: I couldn't find any information in the references that support that sentence either. Can you please provide us with either the specific text that supports it or other references that do? (Maybe the references got moved around?) Regarding the use of the term "fact-checkers" I wholeheartly agree that we should use a different term. In this particular case, we can use the term 'several journalists' instead since the four references provided were authored by journalists. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The first source I check, NPR: "On a large scale or in the long run, there is no reason to think DACA recipients have a major deleterious effect on American workers' employment chances." I'm not going to bother checking the other sources. And "hell no" on saying "several journalists". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I changed the sentence to reflect that since the sentence on this article was fundamentally different than the quote you provided. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

DACA IS ALL LIES

WP:NOTFORUM --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"There are no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment."

LIES: everyone knows many studies have been done showing a huge cost to denizens (those born in usa who's families had huge tax investment by "paying it forward" for many decades - these areas being turned to wholey debt driven and in debt practically over night - billions or trillions nation wide SIMPLY VANISHED).

WIKIPEDIA ADMINS OWE ME AN APOLOGY for attacking my science articles (which i can still and will argue are without error) while promoting absolute POLITICAL lies articles.

In my area, a haven for illegals: these people nearly killed me quite intently, had me jailed for a time without a trial politically, and have racial hiring practices hiring ONLY ILLEGALS (immediately given green cards) because they always vote democrat (the sitting politicians would be in jail a long time if Republicans ever got the podium during their lifetime).

I'll state again: illegals have taken over complete job sectors (are infact in gov positions that "do the hiring"), and as a result complete sectors of government are racially controlled by illegals.

Lastly: USA presidents are not Kings: they have absolutely no legal ability to announce a policy then announce there will be weapons pointed at anyone not implementing his own policy - especially when the policy steals taxes from others. (it's basically a tax evasion issue - but also a voting fraud issue)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals&oldid=801451856"
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