Talk:Opposition to immigration

message: "higher levels of education lead to a more positive reported attitude toward immigrants" is simply wrong if you look at the article, since it implies a causality. But the source doens't neccessarily imply that higher levels of education cause a more positive reported attitude, but instead that people with higher education places people in situations where they suffer less from the negative consequences of immigration, therefore they have a more positive attitude towards immigrants. The quote from the noted source that proves it is the following: "We find that higher levels of education place individuals in occupations that are less exposed to the negative effects of migration, although not in sectors/occupations where the share of migrants is necessarily smaller, suggesting that migrants and low-educated natives may be complementary rather than substitutes in the labour market.". I'm changing the text slightly to a more neutral POV. (31.03.2016, 17:09)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.189.182 (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I left the original quote intact (quotes should be exact or scrapped) but added context from the study for why the educated may differ in attitudes. The authors talk about a lack of economic competition, a greater aversion to discrimination and greater belief in positive effects of immigration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for changin. But isn't the original quote a big misleading? Since the study cannot determine causation, wouldn't a quote be more appropriate that talks about correlation instead of causation? It could theoretically also be that a more positive attitude towards immigrants leads to higher education (okay, that's a bit silly I guess) or that both have a common cause, namely that living a more protected life with richer parents leads to both a higher level of education and a more positive attitude towards immigrants. Maybe the quote should entirely be removed and/or be replaced by a better quote.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.189.182 (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The study uses a strategy to get around that problem and determine causality. It's in first half of the research design section of the paper. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determinants of opposition to immigration 

message: Chock full of weasel words, POV, and severely lacking in citations.  The entire article should either be rewritten or deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.209.239 (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: that's an unhelpful comment. The article sets out the main arguments pro and con. That makes it neutral or  NPOV =  balanced. Rjensen (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Concur. Whoever wrote this can't distinguish illegal immigration from legal immigration -- in my experience, this is typical of the hard left. Unless one can distinguish between these terms, any discussion is pointless. CsikosLo (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible Article 

message: Both this article and the Nativism (politics) article use the term, "first-generation immigrants".  I'm going to have to take issue with this term as hopelessly POV.  Is there any other kind of immigrant?  This term seems like a leftist, identity politics based term that implies that "we are all immigrants" (and therefore all members of some minority group deserving of special benefits rather than members of the majority), which as we all know is complete nonsense.  If you were born in the country you live in, you are by definition not an immigrant.  There are no "second-generation" immigrants - the very conecpt is an oxymoron.  I'm going to have to object to the use of this term in any article and in any context. Puppy Mill 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'First-generation' is common usage in the United States, to describe those who  were born outside the US and migrated there. Other countries may have different terminology. The only use of the term here is in reference to nativism - this article was split off from the Nativism article. (The term 'second-generation immigrant' is not used in this article). The population of the United States is composed largely of immigrant groups, that is why there is a specific term 'nativism'.Paul111 11:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nativism 

message: The Argument and Counter-argument section seems biased because it mainly applies to immigration in the United States. It would be one thing if it were put in a counter US argument, but it's in the main article here. What about Europe or Asia? They are far more powerful as a whole compared to the USA. The general argument and counter-argument section needs to also be inclusive of Europe and Asia. Why is everything on Wikipedia America-centred? 206.113.132.130 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL @ "America-centered". Don't worry, though, I fixed things on this article.Qwenton (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV United States 

message: I do not see any reason to have a counter opinion part in this entry.
82.128.132.130 (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter arguments. 

message: "the argument that immigrants "steal jobs" always overlooks the fact that the jobs being "taken" are typically menial and/or low paying positions which "natives" generally do not wish to perform, creating a demand for labour which is met by immigrants. Due to a lack of cheap labor, industries would be forced to raise prices, which may put an economic burden on the public. Some industries would be forced to relocate overseas."
I'm removing all the scare quotes, except those surrounding "steal jobs" since it is a colloquial expression.
indeed , this is weasel terminology , where do they steal job? why is immigration a viable sure counter to outsourcing? why should immigrants work for less or stay ?  who benefits from the cheap labour and who looses? does subsidizing the cheap labour costs the same anyway? 79.176.49.28 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scare quotes 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Opposition to immigration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ssb":
From Immigration to Norway: 
From Progress Party (Norway): 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Opposition to immigration]] 

message: Article is Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe from the late 2000s, deletion discussion here.--Sum (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article deletion discussion on anti-immigrant sentiment in contemporary Europe 

message: I've made referance with regard to the Japan section.  While their has been an increase of racism toward foreigners in Japan including a push for new immigration control there also has been a push for more immigration due to the aging population and faultering economy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit made to the Japan section 

message: "Maintaining an original ethnic structure, government, and overall citizenship, is the base argument of all opposition to immigration."
Totally neutral, right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.20 (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great neutral article... 

message: Probably.  But it is the use of the word 'environmental' that concerns me.  There must be a better word for concerns involving logistics, infrastructure, land use, etc.  That the word 'environmental' has been linked to the article environmentalism only points out the inappropriateness. "I'm sorry Mr. Chinaman, but the needs of the rosy-footed, golden-winged Appalachian hover bunny means we can't accept you! (Har-har!)" Really? Can we find another word that doesn't have current inappropriately wide-ranging associations? As it is, it's like using 'air-breathing' instead of 'human'.  Oooo, that'd be something PETA would like. Shenme (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  PETA is anti-immigration? 

message: The list of arguments in opposition to immigration all are titled "fear of". Given the negative connotations that the word "fear" has, this is an example of this article having a non-neutral POV. I will change these headings to more neutral terms that reflect their beliefs about immigration, not how their beliefs are perceived by certain outside observers. 73.20.33.105 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree, but as most/all of the arguments in this section are nonsensical and without sources I think having 'fear of' added takes away some power from the nonsense. Maybe it would be better to improve the content of the article first before dealing with such rather petty issues. Michtrich (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fear of" x 

message: Text keeps getting re-added that cites an article in the "Medical Journal of Zambia", an article in the "International Journal of Science and Research" by MA students, and other rubbish publications as evidence that highly skilled emigration hurts the sending countries. The notion of a "brain drain" is a myth in the econ literature, as substantiated by three experts on migration and development, and literally dozens of studies (if you want more, I can add them). Please remove this fringe BS, it's doing a disservice to Wikipedia and misleading readers. It's fine to say "some opponents claim that emigration harms the sending countries" (true) but not to state as fact that emigration does harm the sending countries (false). 
This is not the only content in this Wikipedia article that cites bottom-of-the-barrel sources. The article is a mess for the most part. I encourage editors to seriously sift through the content here and fix these problems.  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: rubbish? bottom-of-the-barrel??   says who? answer: No scholar says that.  People who demand good RS should do a little research before they reject scholarly journals without ever looking at them--indeed without noticing that Medical Journal of Zambia has its own Wikipedia article here.   Google scholar lists over 1200 scholarly articles published in or referencing Medical Journal of Zambia   with over 100 cites in 2016-17.  see the list at   https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="Medical+Journal+of+Zambia"&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C27   The same google search reports over 1550 scholarly journal references to "Brain drain" already published in 2017. plus another 4000 published in 2016--that's a lot of published science about what one anonymous editor believes to be a myth. Wiki NPOV rules require both sides, please.   Rjensen (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Since you care so deeply about Medical Journal of Zambia, please let me know what its impact factor is. Also, (1) experts literally call "brain drain" a myth (2) every study that examines human capital flight or emigration uses the term, if only to say it's a myth or that it's good for the sending countries. Wiki policy is not to "require both sides" when one side is the academic community and the other side is BS articles in non-notable publications - that's false equivalance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Journal of Zambia, some rubbish article by MA students, etc. - what is going on here? 

message: So User:Snooganssnoogans reverted my changes saying "there is absolutely no reason why this article should randomly recite data from Sweden and Germany, UNDUE. i removed the fringe brain drain text (garbage publications) out of sync with all quality research on the topic."
I strongly contest this revert and wish to restore it, because:
* It does not "randomly recite data from Sweden and Germany" but adds very relevant, non-random information on data which shows (that there can be/has been) a link between immigration and crime despite all the claims that this wouldn't be the case. It really needs to be included per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Leaving it out would be leaving out crucial information and biased.
* I do not consider the text on brain drain "fringe" and it has WP:RS. And there are many more sources that have written about the brain drain. Also you can't just decide on your own what is "fringe" and what isn't and what "garbage publications" are and what aren't. Nor is "being out of sync with all quality research on the topic" according to you a reason to remove this. For instance it could be the other way around.In addition from what I can see right now it seems those are only talking about "labor shortages" and not any other associated disadvantages. And emigration being 'beneficial' to the country origin doesn't imply that less emigration wouldn't be 'more beneficial' especially when considering that there are many kinds of emigration.
** Some additional sources: , , , , , 
* No rationale for the removal of Liberal bias in academia in the see alsos has been given.
* The subsections structure the large text and make them easier to read which is imo of special importance in the "Immigration and crime" section where imo (at least almost) UNDUE length is dedicated to "how X affects opposition to immigration" in the context of crime rather than the point itself.
I'd be ok with leaving the info on the "Dillingham Commission" up even though I'd consider it a relatively random point of historic reference of which there are many.
--Fixuture (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: * The brain drain rubbish is covered in the talk section above. You then cite two studies (5, 6) by Michel Beine, Fréderic Docquier, Hillel Rapoport (great scholars) as evidence of a brain drain when they in fact FIND NET GAINS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES and a nuanced picture of losses and gains (as with any issue). #7 is a 1998 working paper that only shows that skilled individuals emigrate in greater numbers (that's what the paper characterizes as a brain drain), not that emigration causes net losses in human capital or other adverse effects. #8 is a 15-year-old one-page opinion piece - doesn't cite any research of note on the issue. As for #9 and #10, I've never heard of "International Economic Review" and "Finance and Development" and I'm not going to bother seeing what their flaws are. Do you seriously just cite "something" when you need to substantiate a claim?
* There is zero reason to include a bunch of crime-immigration data from Sweden and Germany, as opposed to countries where there is no relationship between crime and immigration. The section already covers crime rates worldwide (mixed findings). 
* This article is about "opposition to immigration". If a perceived relationship between crime and immigration informs "opposition to immigration", that's about as pertinent as it gets. Sounds as if you just want this article to be short-hand resource of arguments for opponents of immigrants. 
* I cannot understand the reason why Liberal bias in academia has been added to this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snooganssnoogans' revert 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Opposition to immigration. 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/20090805204302/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/20050330-9999-lz1e30navar.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/navarrette/20050330-9999-lz1e30navar.html
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) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Text citing this source needs to be reworded: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/economic-and-cultural-drivers-of-immigrant-support-worldwide/02BBCF09B063FCD0C252B6D78E748DE8. Ping  see this edit, perhaps you can remove the offending versions? AadaamS (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in quotation marks, so no. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section copyright violation. 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/05/scotlands-dirty-little-secret-were-as-anti-immigration-as-england/; https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/11/07/canadian-attitudes-towards-immigration-hardening-poll-suggests.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Cordless Larry (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: There's a Template:Unbalanced dated September 2019 - there does not seem to be a discussion dated September 2019. What are the outstanding issues? A Thousand Words (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Unbalanced - September 2019 

message: Should this article use the terms 'blacks' or 'gypsies', I understand that it is accurate to the time, but in this modern era, shouldnt we be using words like 'african american' and 'romani' Headisoff (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to wording 

message: In the opening opposition to immigration is classified as a political ideology. However, I don't see a source on this page that explicitly states as such. Opposition to immigration appears more of a political position to me, rather than a political ideology. Can anyone provide a reliable WP:SYNTH complying source that explicitly calls it one of these two? Helper201 (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political ideology or political position?