Talk:Immigration law

message: The article right now is pretty stubby, and I think would be better done as a disambiguation page with forks to Immigration to the United States, Immigration to the United Kingdom (1922-present day), etc. Wl219 09:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What's with the big section in the middle written in the first person? Is this an advertisement for CLESPA, or an article about immigration law in the United States? -12.70.92.162 (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. Thanks for pointing that out. I've remvoed it now.   Will Beback  talk   23:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Avertising?

message: The section on the UK is simply wrong - how do I know.  run a uk immigration practice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.183.160 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  simply incorrect 

message: I have created a table comparing migration categories in different countres. There are many blank places there, unfrtunately I cannot fill them all. Please update the table if you know something on specific legislation. This table us going to be an important fource of initial information of those who is thinking about changing country.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious735 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A big comparison 

message: There seems to lack a date on the Chinese Exclusion Act. "Many years later" is not very helpful. May 6, 1882 is the correct date, right? I am not an experienced Wikipedian and therefore I have not made the correction myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonwaever (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Exclusion Act - Date 

message: The sentence "Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection." must lack something as it makes no sense. Does anyone know what is meant to be said by this sentence?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonwaever (talk • contribs) 16:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence that does not make sense 

message: This Article may need some major rework from a legal standpoint. I'll list some points where this Article could be improved upon (mostly as a reminder for myself, but comments are always welcome):
* I would not discuss the issue of "European Union migration law". For one, from what I know, the EU does not decide on individual migrant applications themselves, and any Regulations/Directives passed by the EU legislature merely introduce categories of visa's/permits which the individuals Member States have to implement. Further, in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (Part I, Title V of the TFEU), there are various opt-outs (e.g. UK/Ireland and Denmark have opted-out of the Blue Card regime). Certain aspects, such as the (short-term) Schengen Visa, is subject to an entirely separate regime, to which some non-EU States are Party.
* I would either expand on the content of other countries' immigration laws (which would be a huge effort), or remove the mention of the US immigration law (perhaps relegating it to the 'See also' section. Otherwise, it might give the impression of the US immigration regime being representative of the world's immigration laws. A suggestion for the former is perhaps to group them by regions. For Europe, the general description could then include the issues of EU migration 'laws', Schengen, and the opt-outs, with wikilinks to the more specific articles.
* I would remove the issues of citizenship from the immigration laws (table) entirely, perhaps moving them to a separate section on Access to Citizenship instead. This is due to the fact thatnot all countries consider citizenship/nationality and migration together. Many of the issues are considered as separate laws (e.g. separate Citizenship Laws, Immigration Laws, Visa Laws/policies (sometimes in Passport legislation)).
* For the same reasons, I would separate (or at least clearly denote the differences between) short-term immigration (i.e. visas) and 'longer-term' immigration (e.g. residence permits). Often (from what I know of various EU immigration laws), there are separate categories for short-term and long-term visas/permits, and these categories do not always overlap or equate. Especially in the EU, countries that are part of Schengen generally have one uniform visa law (i.e. Schengen Visa Code), but they retain their individual residence-migration laws and policies.
These are just some of the issues I think would greatly improve this Article. I'll try to get around to them as much as I can. --talk2Chun(talk) (contributions) 15:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing various legal issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Immigration law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217141254/http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/QMAS.htm to http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/QMAS.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060404042127/http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/IS-01.pdf to http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/is-01.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just removed that section and instead added Immigration to the United States to the See also section. This article is about immigration law in general, not in the US, and it should have a global scope. The inclusion of a section specific to the United States implies that the laws there are representative of many/most/all nations (they clearly are not) and/or that all other nations should have their own special sections too, which is both impractical and essentially impossible. Additionally, the information in "In the United States" was either irrelevant, outdated, incomplete, poorly written, opinionated, lacking quality citations, or some combination thereof. If someone would like to add relevant information specific to the United States and is able to express it in a neutral manner, please do so. DadOfBeanAndBug (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "In the United States" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Immigration law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120710145601/http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/faq_cies.htm to http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/faq_cies.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified