Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States/Archive 3

message: In the USA, there is currently great inequality in illegal immigration and legal immigration, with legal immigrants of high skill facing multi-year bureaucratic backlogs at USCIS. With family and employment - based immigration, errors can result in tragic mistreatments of immigrants, spouses and children, even affecting US citizens. After divorce or death of a family member deportation also can occur. In order to avoid slipping into illegality, family members can be forced indirectly or directly to abandon their families. Unfortunately, the United States, as the only signee of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child other then Somalia, has not ratified the convention guaranteeing children regular contact to parents. It can be argued that illegal immigration and immigration from Latin America needs to be balanced by highly skilled immigrants from developed countries.
above moved here to rewite and merged into main page. Brimba 19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal/illegal immigration problems

message: I'm going to let Ramsey's edit sit as is until tomorrow.  But I will point out that it is based on his OR.  
Princeton WordNet defines "Civilian" as "a nonmilitary citizen"
and "Citizen" as "a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community".  A Civilian is a nonmilitary native or naturalized member of a state or other political community.  Illegal immigrants don't meet that definition.
As he is basing his edit on his OR, his edit will be reverted tomorrow.-Psychohistorian 15:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That combination of definitions seems highly questionable to me.  But even if accepted, this line of reasoning does not allow one to conclude that all non-citizens are "military" by definition.    Richwales 16:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then its fortunate that noone has said that "all non-citizens are 'military' by definition" isn't it?  Just because a civilian is non-military doesn't mean that a non-citizen must be military.  Nowhere in the definitions above does an "if and only if" statement appear.-Psychohistorian  17:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second Ramsey's edit. This is cherry picking from the dictionary.Terjen 17:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not have the power as a Wikipedia editor to question whether third party sources are accurate, you only have the power to judge whether or not they are reliable sources.-Psychohistorian 17:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the real question is not whether some particular dictionary definition (or sequence of definitions) would classify non-citizens as "military".  Instead, we should ask what the relevant laws say.  The context of the disputed edit here, I believe, is the proper interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which — as I understand it — does not use the term "civilian" or anything like it, but refers simply to the use of the armed forces to "execute the laws".  Richwales 19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, there seems to be a couple of points of confusion here.
One, you are basing part of your claim on what you believe to be true (e.g., where you say "-as I understand it-").  If you take a step back for a moment, though, I'm sure you will agree that "-as I understand it-" should be of no consequence to what goes into the article.  The article needs to abide by the three pillars of Wikipedia - those pillars have nothing at all to do with "-as I understand it-".  If you believe that the law means something other than what Trebilock (a policy expert and lawyer) says it means, then you need to find a reliable source which agrees with you.
Two, where you write, "the real question is not whether some particular dictionary definition (or sequence of definitions) would classify non-citizens as 'military'", you are implying that someone has argued that non-citizens must be military.  I challenge you to show where anyone has done so.  The definitions which have been sourced make allowances for people who are BOTH non-citizens AND non-military at the same time.  Hopefully this has cleared up your confusion.-Psychohistorian 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This whole thing is both frivilous and silly. You aren't even trying to be serious. --Ramsey2006 20:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This indeed silly and even disruptive. Unless someone can fund a reliable source that says only citizens can be civilians this discussion is a waste of time. -Will Beback · † · 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Unless someone can find a reliable source.."  That's already been done.  What has not been done is to provide a reliable source which says that other than citizens can be civilians.  Instead of abiding by Wikipedia policy by responding to reliable sources with reliable sources, you all have responded to reliable sources by calling the point "frivolous and silly" and "even disruptive".  If you believe that the point is truly disruptive (that is, if you aren't just trying to use a rhetorical trick), I -encourage- you to report it and see what third parties have to say.  Of course, I suspect you won't because you know I'm not being disruptive but rather trying to enforce Wikipedia policy whereas you all are pushing a POV.-Psychohistorian 11:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stringing two dictionary definitions together into a novel conclusion is not a "source", it's "original research".  -Will Beback · † · 12:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating "Note, Princeton WordNet defines "Civilian" as "a nonmilitary citizen" and "Citizen" as "a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community" is not OR - the source is clearly identifiable.-Psychohistorian 12:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be fine if we listed all of the other definitions of "civilian". To pick one in order to make a point is OR. For reference, the " American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition" definition doesn't mention citizenship. -Will Beback · † · 19:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "alternative definitions"?  This issue would be resolved in a flat second if any of you could provide a reliable source which doesn't tie "civilian" to "citizen".  The American Heritage Dictionary defines "Civilian" as "A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group." and "civil" as "Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens: civil duties." -Psychohistorian 12:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that a resident alien is not a civilian is absurd. Stringing together mutliple dictionary definitions to arrive at that conclusion does not make it valid.  -Will Beback · † · 22:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you don't have a source and, rather prefer to just violate the three pillars of Wikipedia and, instead, base what goes into this article on your personal opinion - like I said, POV pushing -Psychohistorian 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't have a source. You're engaging in original research. -Will Beback · † · 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, now you're engaging in doublespeak.  I point out two seperate dictionaries as sources and you reply that I don't have a source.  You provide no source at all for your position and argue that a source isn't needed.  You just keep making my case stronger that you are pushing POV.-Psychohistorian 16:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civilian/Citizen

message: What is the relevance of this comment?
"Military lawyer Craig T. Trebilock argues that "the fact that armed military troops were placed in a position with the mere possibility that they would have to use force to subdue civilian criminal activity reflects a significant policy shift by the executive branch away from the posse comitatus doctrine."
How is this suppossed to clarify his position?
Adding it without context leaves one to believe that Trebilock is against using the military in country - when his article is to the point that he supports use of military in country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychohistorian (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a different point, not a clarification of the point you are pushing.Terjen 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is to a different point."  What point is that?-Psychohistorian 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That there was a policy shift by the executive branch away from the posse comitatus doctrine.Terjen 20:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of Trebilock extension??

message: As was pointed out before, editors on Wikipedia are not given the power to say whether sources are accurate or not (doing so would constitute original research).
That means that deleting sources because you think that they are wrong is against policy (such a statement is an example of original research).
Yet, that is exactly what was done here.
Because a statement by an expert in the field disagrees with Terjen's politics, Terjen takes it upon himself to impose original research to push his politics (POV).-Psychohistorian 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Earlier on this page you claimed I was pushing the POV that people illegally immigrating are immigrants. What POV is it that you think I am pushing this time? Anyway, I suggest the opening statement about the Posse Comitatus Act simply states the generally accepted interpretation of the act rather than alternative interpretations, and thus that a link to the Posse Comitatus Act is sufficient to support it, rather than references to articles promoting alternative interpretations of the statute. Besides, a general discussion of different interpretations of the Posse Comitatus Act is better covered by that entry, so I suggest you dish it out there rather than here.Terjen 20:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are seeking to replace a link to an expert discussing the act with a link to a bunch of laymen discussing it.  What's more, you tried to justify it by claiming that the expert was actually a layman (he is, in fact, a lawyer and highly experienced policy analyst).  Further, Wikipedia is a tertiary source and Wikipedia policy specifically states that Wikipedia articles can't be used as a source for other Wikipedia articles.
The POV you are seeking to push is the same as it was before - pro-illegal immigration. -Psychohistorian 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Brinkhoff himself seems to be well aware that he is promoting an alternative interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act, writing "Somehow, in the past 125 years, the meaning of the Posse Comitatus Act has been stood on its head." The bio of John R. Brinkerhoff in the article does not say he's a lawyer as you claim. Where is your source? PS: you apparently have no idea what my POV is, which I take as a compliment.Terjen 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many examples where the common understanding of something isn't the same as the understanding of experts.  That doesn't mean that the understanding of the point by experts is wrong when it disagrees with the common understanding.  Its typically the case that the opposite is true.  That's why we should cite experts (such as Brinkhoff), not Wikipedia.-Psychohistorian 21:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brinkhoff  even disagrees with Trebilock's interpretation: "Sinnreich, Trebilcock, Bolduc, and most commentators who opine on this law are wrong. The Posse Comitatus Act was not, as they assert and as most people believe, enacted to prevent members of military services from acting as a national police force." His disagreement clearly goes beyond the common understanding of the statute: "The lawyers have had a hand in transforming the Posse Comitatus Act from its original intent to what it may or may not be today. A substantial body of case law and judicial decisions pertaining to the use of military personnel to enforce the laws has been created. A casual review of these cases reveals confusion, inconsistency, and downright perversion of the original intent of the law." Terjen 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really don't have a point here.  Bolduc is a Provost Marshall.  He's neither a lawyer nor a policy analyst.  "Commentators" is referring to the common understanding.  All you are pointing out is that two experts (Trebilock and Brinkhoff) disagree on the policy regarding a point that has nothing to do with the point that we are discussing.  Okay, so you've managed to highlight the obvious - that lawyers and policy analysts can disagree.  Now, can you actually make it relevant to the article by providing a cite of an expert who disagrees with Brinkhoff on the point relevant to this article?-Psychohistorian 12:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Brinkhoff article doesn't discuss Posse Comitatus in the context of illegal immigration, so I don't see a reason to include it. His recommendation is that "It is time to rescind the existing Posse Comitatus Act and replace it with a new law." I suggest you take your alternative interpretations to the Posse Comitatus Act entry instead.Terjen 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their articles discuss whether the military can be used in the US and for what purposes.  "For what purposes" provides guidelines on whether they can be used to enforce immigration law.  If you think that you (who have no background in law and are not a legal expert by any stretch) are able to judge whether they (who are experts) are misinterpreting the law or misrepresenting it, well, I just don't have words to describe that level of arrogance.   But I will point out that your assumption is based on OR.-Psychohistorian 13:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More evidence of POV pushing

message: All the data found in this table is in the cited sources, although not in that format.  Then again, whether or not it is in the same format has no bearing since none of the data anywhere in this article is in the same format as in the original source, but is included.  Wikipedia articles, by their very nature, create their own format for all collected data.  This isn't a synthesis of data.  It is the same data in a new format.-Psychohistorian 12:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are in there, where? Or simple not there, as appears to be the case. Brimba 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the words "criminal" or "crime" in either source. Also, we shouldn't merge two sets of information, collected with different methodologies for different purposes, into one table. -Will Beback · † · 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime table removal

message: Terjen and Brimba have put forth an argument for the the free market and labor but insist on not providing both sides to that argument and, thereby, are pushing their POV yet again.
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychohistorian (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem to have properly summarized the source. Is there a sourced rebuttal to the LvMI position that we can include? -Will Beback · † · 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its already in the links I provided above, but here it is again, "However, a free migration argument consistent with the free market would require us to first have a free market - to remove the welfare system."-Psychohistorian 02:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More POV pushing

message: The following edits have been reverted for the following reasons
*Regarding the alleged controversty with Time magazine, no such controversy has been sourced and even if it had, the way to handle disputes between sources is to provide both sources, not to remove one.  Therefore, the Time poll has been readded and the Time comment on ecological devastation has been readded.
*"However, it is notable that all of the hijackers entered the U.S. from Canada and not from Mexico" I was going to replace this with "all of the hijackers enterd the U.S. from Canada" as saying it is "notable" is POV, but there is no source provided, so I just removed it entirely.
*"==Causes of Migration=="
has been reverted to "==Causes==" as "==Causes of Illegal Immigration ==" is implicit in the article's topic
*"The net growth rate of the native population in the United States without immigration has been close to a stable plateau since 1972 . " had been removed without explanation.  It has been restored.
-Psychohistorian 12:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for correcting the sentence stating that all of the hijackers entered from Canada. This seems to be a widespread perception, and false. The Canadian Ambassador has claimed it is a fact that "none of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States through Canada", reciting Ashcroft stating that after considerable work to trace their activities, to his knowledge all of them came  to the United States directly [], also supported by the 9/11 Commission Report . Terjen 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I spoke too soon: you had removed a sentence in the middle of a quote, so I reinstated it and added some of the information mentioned above. Terjen 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if you had taken the time to review the source before editing my edit, you would have discovered that the original quote didn't include that statement.-Psychohistorian 12:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Some earlier editor apparently inserted the sentence about entering from Canada in the middle of the quote. This demonstrates the problem of including a multi-sentence quote like that though, suggesting that it perhaps should be paraphrased or shortened. Terjen 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Or just demarcate it for easier identification as I've now done.-Psychohistorian 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: ==Move to viewpoints
"Put in its proper context however, polls have continually shown that a majority of Americans do, in fact, favor a Guest Worker Program. This is significant because any Guest Worker program would inevitably deal with the political status of the estimated 11 million undocumented workers in the U.S." is unsourced.
"A recent Zogby poll found that 61% of Americans were less sympathetic to undocumented workers as a result of the protests. " moved to viewpoints
==
*==== March for Immigrant Rights ====
change to ====Protests==== as the current title is heavily POV and confusing - the topic is illegal immigration, not immigration in general
* "back in 2000" changed to "in 2000" in conformance with Wikipedia policy
*In 2006, Phoenix talk show host Brian James suggested on the air that a solution to the immigration problem in Arizona would be to kill illegal immigrants on random nights as they cross the border. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton called the remarks "irresponsible and dangerous".Associated Press, April 10, 2006. Officials: Radio host's call to kill border crossers dangerous. Also in 2006, Nashville radio talk show host Phil Valentine said during Demagnetize America, an anti-immigrant meeting, that he thought the U.S. Border Patrol Agents should consider shooting undocumented immigrants as they come across the border.Bill Berkowitz, May 5, 2006. Nativists Declare Open Season on Undocumented Immigrants. Dissident voice. In 2005, New Jersey radio talk show host Hal Turner encouraged to "Kill illegal aliens as they cross into the U.S. When the stench of rotting corpses gets bad enough, the rest will stay away."ADL Hal Turner in His Own Words
may be hate speech, but its not terrorism
terrorism is defined as ""the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
Offering a bounty falls under that definition, saying "its a good idea" does not.
If you'd like to readd the content in some other location (after thinking about it a bit more, I suggest "viewpoints"), that would be fine.  Honestly, I should have gone ahead and put it there (I just didn't think about it at the time) and will do so now.
*"==Causes of Migration==" changed to "==Causes==" for reasons already stated
-Psychohistorian 13:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the paragraph on radio hosts enticing killing border crossers while keeping the paragraph on the retired worker offering a bounty to kill a border patrol demonstrates a double standard. Terjen 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I didn't remove it.  I moved it to viewpoints.  Second, he said basically "I think we should".  That's not "unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- forces or violence.."  Offering a bounty, however, does fall under that description.  The exercise of free speech is not terrorism - while it may be hate speech.  Offering to reward someone if they kill someone for political reasons is terrorism.  If he had offered a bounty to people who kill illegal aliens, you'd have a point.-Psychohistorian 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this analogy will make the distinction clearer.  If I say "I think its a good idea to bomb abortion clinics", that's very different than if I actually pay you $10,000 to bomb an abortion clinic.-Psychohistorian 18:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to just interpret the definition as you see fit. How convenient. I assume then, that you won't oppose us documenting in the terrorism section any offers of bounties to kill or hurt illegal immigrants?Terjen 19:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already said, "If he had offered a bounty to people who kill illegal aliens, you'd have a point".  Why then are you asking if I would oppose your documenting in the terrorism section any offers of bounties to kill or hurt illegal aliens?  Seems to me, I already answered that question.  But let me be more clear, barring any unforeseen side issues and assuming that the sources for such things abide by Wikipedia policy (NPOV, OR, Verifiability), NPOV would require including documentation of bounties offered to kill illegal aliens if we are going to include bounties to offered to kill members of the border patrol.
Now, having said that, you claim that I am interpreting the definition as I see fit.  So, answer this question..do you see a difference between saying "abortion clinics should be bombed" and actually paying someone $10,000 dollars to bomb abortion clinics?-Psychohistorian 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I don't see a relevant difference between if say Jerry Falwell encouraged his audience to bomb abortion clincics for Jesus vs if Falwell offered them a monetary reward for the same. Terjen 23:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I undertsand it, the guy said "I think we should", not "you go right now and start shooting illegal aliens".  And I sure as hell see the difference so does the American legal system.  I can say "I think someone should shoot you, Terjen" and I won't have legal proceedings brought against me.  If I say "here's $10,000 which is yours if you shoot Terjen" I will.-Psychohistorian 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think you would be charged with terrorism in either case? Terjen 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case in which I offered to pay someone to kill law officers in order to make a political point?  Yes.-Psychohistorian 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The difference is small enough that we should lump together the various incitements to violence. The point of including them is, I presume, to illustrate the depths of feeling concerning the topic. -Will Beback · † · 00:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure you would, but you constant efforts to push POV are documented.-Psychohistorian 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that I am not editing to Wikipedia standards please file an RfC or a request for arbitration. Do not make casual attacks on my editing on article talk pages. And I don't believe you've documented any POV pushing by me, you've only asserted it. -Will Beback · † · 10:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a stretch to locate this info in the Terrorism subsection. I moved both paragraphs to a new Threats and Violence subsection instead. Terjen 02:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The creation of a Threats of Violence subsection is, I think, a good idea.  However, some of what was moved there are acts of terrorism and they have been moved to that section.-Psychohistorian 02:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have references showing that Carlos Ibarra Perez was indicted for terrorism, or is this just your personal opinion? Terjen 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're asking the wrong question.  The question which should be asked is does offering a bounty to kill an officer of the law in order to make a political statement through fear fall under the definition of "terrorism".-Psychohistorian 11:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither BBC nor UPI, the two cited sources, labeled Perez a terrorist, nor did they call his action terrorism. Both used the term violence in the context. Case dismissed. Terjen 16:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits 2.21.2007

message: *Immigrants boost pay, not prison populations, new studies show: Immigrants are less likely to go to prison than U.S.-born residents of the same ethnic group and they boost pay for natives, research says. 
These new studies contradict some commonly-held beliefs and may be worth reporting. -Will Beback · † · 22:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two new studies 

message: The following paragraph is in the Economic section of Illegal immigration to the United States:
A comprehensive Congressionally mandated two year 1997 study of immigration costs by 15 well known professors The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration by the National Science Foundation found that illegal immigrants, on average, cost Federal State and Local taxpayers $4,867 per illegal immigrant household.
The reference provided as source:
* National Science Foundation (1997). The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration table 6.4, pg 284 
The link above leads to Table 6.5 of the NSF report, Net Annual Fiscal Impact (NAFI) Imposed by Current Immigrant-Headed Households on Native Residents in New Jersey and California. Table 6.4 is on the previous page (283)  and is labeled Federal Expenditures, Revenues, and Average Fiscal Balance by Households: California (1996 dollars per California household).
Neither of these tables substantiates the claim in the paragraph in our article saying that illegal immigrants, on average, cost Federal State and Local taxpayers $4,867 per illegal immigrant household. 
-- Terjen 03:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a "refactor" anything like "adding references"? --Ramsey2006 18:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, synonymous to under the radar. Terjen 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My goodness try doing a little math, what they are trying to say (and do say if you read the footnotes) is that if you take the believed mix of illegal immigrants (percent and numbers) from PEW and multiply them by the costs found by NSF for each group, taking the average of NJ and CA state and local costs you would come up with that number ($4,867). All the numbers used to do this are given in the table so it shouldn't be too difficult. You are right about the NSF not being specific to illegal immigrants (they didn't differentiate) so the average education level is too high, taxes and income too low for illegal immigrants. The real costs to taxpayers for each illegal immigrant househould [Net Annual Fiscal Impact (NAFI)] would be higher than the $4,867 quoted. Taxes (down) and 10 years inflation (up) would also increase the number by at least 20%, making the "real" believable number from $5,000-$8,000/household.
Cheers,
D'lin 06:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: P.P.S. If you don't like $4,867 you are welcome to use the $7.206/ household cost in CA or the $6,625 cost in NJ for Latins reported by NSF (at least 80%+ of all illegals are Latins) as a reasonable estimate. They are numbers even Terjen can find in a Peer reviewed NSF study--wow. D'lin 06:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: D'lin wrote "take the believed mix of illegal immigrants (percent and numbers) from PEW and multiply them by the costs found by NSF for each group, taking the average of NJ and CA state and local costs you would come up with that number ($4,867). All the numbers used to do this are given in the table so it shouldn't be too difficult." Well, why don't you just fill in the numbers for us then and show us your calculation? Terjen 18:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The $4,867 average taxpayer cost of illegal immigrants nationwide is thus proclaimed inferred by generalizing from statistics on California and New Jersey immigrants (both legal and illegal). This is at best errornous original research. One cannot make generalizations from this sample to make a statement about the larger population like illegal immigrants, on average, cost Federal State and Local taxpayers $4,867 per illegal immigrant household. It has been in the article way too long already. Terjen 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSF Study 

message: I suspect 24.5.204.16 is a Sock Puppet for D'lin. Similar contributions: 24.5.204.16 vs D'lin. Both seems to have an interest in e.g. King Philip's War and Illegal immigration to the United States.Terjen 00:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suspected sock puppets should be reported at WP:SSP. We try not to discuss users on article talk pages. -Will Beback · † · 05:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. Thanks. Terjen 05:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected Sock Puppet 

message: The above presently reads as follows:
I encourage you to peruse the source article in question. It's long; though indeed when I started reading it I was sure it was an editorial piece (but it reads like an investigational essay). I ask you all if you agree with that assessment, speaking towards its suitability as a source for our article.
As to the above section I cut out, I suggest to all of you that it is quite un-neutral, with adjectives such as "obvious" "fragile" "tramping" plus the vague "many other"; and that while it is important to present viewpoints re: the effects of illegal immigration, the actual non-quoted wiki text should refrain from such adjectives or viewpoints. I have thought it fit to remove the entire above section; to replace it I hope someone can provide well sourced quotes, and neutral treatement of sources. Pablosecca 02:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecology subsection under Impact section

message: Under the "Means of violation" subsection "Overstays", a sentence is unclear to me:
"The number of overstayers varies considerably from country to country depending on the location of the country, the cultural, political, amount of civil strife, social and economic conditions in a given country in a given time."  The list of dependencies is confusing.  What I gather from it is that the "location of [the] country", "the cultural [and] political" undefined something, the "amount of civil strife", and the "social and economic conditions" are dependencies.  Studying the sentence makes me feel that one of two ideas are trying to be stated: (1) "the cultural, political, [and] amount of civil strife" are among the dependencies OR (2) "the cultural [strife], political [strife], [and] amount of civil strife" are among the dependencies.  Cleaning up this sentence to more clearly reflect the ideas that are trying to be conveyed would make it a little easier for others to read and understand.  Thanks.  - Everchanging02 03:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence Cleanup 

message: This article is clearly biased towards a pro-illegal immigration stance and it seems that a group of dedicated editors with an agenda to push is attempting to eliminate all anti-illegal immigration arguments and sources. I see nothing about the topic of lowered wages due to illegal immigration and the only studies included are pro-illegal immigration. --BlarghHgralb 17:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it definitely is biased towards pro-illegal immigration.  Please stay here and help me provide a more balanced view.-198.97.67.57 11:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite the opposite. This article is far more leaning towards the nativist camp - see the economics section. Signaturebrendel 04:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Just because a wiredo rants about it on CNN or Fox or MSNBC does not make it so. Chivista 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been wild fantasies of Lauire Milroy but it remains a fact that Sadaam did not harbor those Saudi Al Qaedi before the Wasr. Chivista 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A major syndicated newspaper would appear to be a reliable source. Do not revert again. --BlarghHgralb 18:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chivista has been reported for violation of 3RR -198.97.67.56 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spell me wright!  ;) Chivista 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No credible info that Saudi Al Qaedi has met with Mexican gangs

message: Why are we quoting at length from a press release by Elton Gallegly? Is he an expert? Or just a politican annopuncing a position? If we had a bona fide expert on the topic then long quotes woud be differnt, but I don't see why we should give this pol special prominence. -Will Beback · † · 20:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not just using him as a source, we're quoting him verbatim. There are 434 other congressmen who also have viewpoiints on this. Why are we quoting Gallegly in particular? -Will Beback · † · 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Gallegly is a Congressman whose statements on the issue are available.  If you have a reliable source to another duly elected Congressman who is stating statistical facts, please add them.-75.179.159.240 21:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that a press release from a random congressman is a very reliable source for statistics. Politicians are infamous for getting numbers wrong. It'd be much better to get them from whatever source he found them. Nor is he notable enough that his iewpoints are themsevels notable, so I don't see any reason to quote him verbatim. -Will Beback · † · 23:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elton Gallegly 

message: Someone prepared a table of educational level of illegal immigrants, and listed a Pew report as the source.  However referenced document doesn't mention education at all. I expect it's just a mistake sourcing.  I've commented-out the section until we can find the right reference. -<B> ·:·</B> Will Beback  ·:·  01:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: I removed this statement, since I thought it was pretty dubious.  It's an estimate of the amount of gas illegal immigrants use based on the average per capita amount of gas used and the number of illegal immigrants.  Is this from some source, or is it a calculation by the writer?  Is there any reason to think that illegals use the same amount of gas as the average citizen?  I'd think it would be less since a lot of illegals don't have driver's lisences.  Anyway, I thought it was dubious so I removed it.  If you disagree, you can revert me or discuss it here.  delldot talk 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced statement