Talk:Undocumented immigrant population of the United States

message: The legal term is "illegal alien", which term sums up the nature of the offense, the nature of the individual so defined and the gravity of such offense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeaPartyImmigrationCoalition (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: amen 98.4.124.117 (talk)
I feel the term "undocumented" is disingenuous and falls outside of the norm found in the pages Illegal immigration to the United States, Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States and the category Illegal immigration to the United States. - Schrandit (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a good first step would be creation of a WP page devoted to the terminology debate, as it does seem to be a Thing in American culture, possibly using the Jose Antonio Vargas page as a beginning point. Neutrality debate can follow on that page, and then, after time and resolution, expand outward to articles like this. Thoughts? --Akhenaten0 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the term "illegal"

message: In the current form, the article is highly misleading using primary documents as sourcing. The section about Remittances to Mexico is based on Bear Stearn investigation which is lacking citation from a news article. The section read more as a talk page discussion than an article. My suggestion is to merge any useful information to Illegal immigration to the United States.--Jmundo (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Illegal immigration to the United States]] 

message: My name is Katherine and I am currently a senior attending Rice University. I intend on writing a new Wikipedia page titled “Healthcare availability for undocumented immigrants,” for which I thought this page would serve as a great parent article for. In this new article I intend on including four main sections on the following: introduction/background, usage of healthcare services, barriers to accessing the health care system, and relevant federal and state-level policies. Under each of these main sections, except the introduction, there will also be at least one subsection related to particular populations, such as women or specific data found on the topic. This proposed contribution is also part of a course I am taking for my minor on poverty, justice, and human capabilities. Please feel free to offer thoughts, advice, and suggestions! Katcai02 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing New Related Article on Undocumented Immigrants

message: I've removed the Bears Stearns report (Justich and Ng), because:
# It is outdated (2005).
# Except for some news reports at the time that it first was published (2005), the The report does not appear to be substantially cited recently by scholars or journalists. (Unlike the Pew, DHS, or Center for Migration Studies stats, which are frequently cited for both historical and present estimates).
# The "20 million" figure is far, far out of the range of what other sources say. It's an extraordinary claim. 
# The report is not footnoted and provides almost no quantitative analysis.
# The work was self-published and was not peer-reviewed or published under the auspices of a recognized authority, like a think tank.
:: Notably, it comes with the following disclaimer: "The views expressed herein are those of the individual author and may differ from those expressed by other Bear Stearns Asset Management Inc. and Bear Stearns & Co. departments, including any of the Bear Stearns & Co. research department."
:: The authors are financial analysts but we have almost no information on their qualifications or expertise (if any). This report in Barron's indicated that Justich's area of expertise had nothing to do with immigration, and that his interest in the subject was a side project or something that he was interested in. 
-- Neutralitytalk 07:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bear Stearns report 

message: Re this edit, which I've reverted: the cited source literally says: "The unauthorized immigrant population ... dropped sharply during the Great Recession of 2007-09" and has remained stable since. So "leveled off" is much further from the original source, and is not an improvement. (The edit also introduces a factual inaccuracy by referring to the "Great Recession in 2009" when in fact the recession occurred over multiple years.) 
Because the current wording is stable and directly supported by the cited source, it should not be changed without consensus here. Neutralitytalk 02:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pew Research  

message: As I am writing this it's 2018 and basically all the data presented in the article has been updated in the real world.  It's chock full of political advocacy so there's folks waiting to challenge anything updating or added reflecting that we've moved on from 2007. patsw (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great article from 2007 but... 

message: User:Snooganssnoogans reverted [my edit] about the new Yale estimate on the basis of being not NPOV. I do not see how it can be characterized as such. If there is non-NPOV language, it should be modified. The solution cannot be to simply return to stating the prior estimates as definitively true and then mentioning the Yale study as essentially a footnote. I had written "most estimates ..." and "a new study ...," which addresses this well; I do not see a basis for the elimination of nearly all of that content and the marginalization of what remains.Mikalra (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not simply "revert" you. I re-wrote the text to make it compliant with NPOV. We don't describe studies as "more sophisticated" (in particular when the study has been challenged). The study is in the text, and described in a NPOV manner. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the Yale method IS more sophisticated than the residual method. But in any event, if that's your objection, it would be sufficient to give my original text and simply remove these two words. Do you agree to that?Mikalra (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I agree with the version of the text that I wrote (obviously). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... and I agree with the version of the text that I wrote (obviously); that doesn't get us anywhere. What is your basis for leaving prior estimates stated as fact, rather than "most estimates.... but a Yale study..."? What is your basis for eliminating all details on methodology on the Yale study in the methodology section of the entry? What is your basis for leaving the mean estimate for the Pew and other studies, but only the 95% CI for Yale? What is your basis for describing the Yale study as a "PLOSOne study", which is the venue where the study was published, not the organization or investigator that conducted it?Mikalra (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of Edit based on Yale Study 

message: I agree with some earlier comments that "undocumented immigrant" is almost a propaganda term, but "illegal immigrant" is nonsensical word salad.  Acts, not people, are illegal.  "Illegal immigration" makes sense; "illegal immigrant" does not.  Is there really no better title for this article? Bueller 007 (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your view that "illegal immigrant" does not make sense. We all understand what an "illegal drug" is, don't we? And it makes perfect sense to say that someone could be arrested for possession of an "illegal drug" - everyone understands what is meant by the phrase, do they not? "Illegal immigrant" is just the same. It makes perfect sense. Birtig (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Illegal immigrant" is word salad 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 21:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Procedural close. There is a parallel discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States#Requested move 18 September 2021 about the exact same proposal; there should be only one ongoing discussion about the name of any given page. I'm closing this one because it has fewer comments than the other. Users TFD, ModernDayTrilobite and dlthewave should please comment there.  Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Illegal immigrant population of the United States →  – WP:NEUTRAL term. The Hill Bloomberg 
NPR. Voice of America  Vox The New York Times NBC News CBS News Forbes The Economist ABC News CNN Politico The Christian Science Monitor Newsweek USA Today NPR WP:COMMONNAME. Showiecz (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 September 2021 

message: *Support Whatever the merits of using the term undocumented, that is the term used in reliable sources and per weight and common name, the term that Wikipedia should use. TFD (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Clear consensus to move   (t · c) buidhe 10:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Illegal immigrant population of the United States →  – WP:NEUTRAL term. The Hill Bloomberg 
NPR. Voice of America  Vox The New York Times NBC News CBS News Forbes The Economist ABC News CNN Politico The Christian Science Monitor Newsweek USA Today NPR, Voice of America WP:COMMONNAME. Showiecz (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Resubstituted template to fix malformed move request. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 17 November 2021 

message: *Support per nom. Facts707 (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: This is a very problematic article in its current form, almost to the point of a WP:TNT delete (or rather, blank-and-redirect to Illegal immigration to the United States).  It's not clear whether "undocumented" is a term that only applies to some illegal immigration, or is a euphemism for all illegal immigration -- would a visa overstay be counted or not? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion