Talk:Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005

message: The Provisions section lacks an obvious source.  It might be an accurate summary of the bill, or might not.  A list of provisions linked to one or more sources would give me more confidence in the article.  -Scottwiki 02:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am specifically curious about the claim "All children born in America from illegal immigrants will become wards of the state". I went spelunking through the actual text of the bill (4 versions) and could not find anything that even leads to that conclusion. Is there a clause I am missing? -Nstohlma 23:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I live on the border, and my guess is that this means the child will be taken into foster care and the parents sent back to whatever country they originally came from. This would prevent illegals who have children in the US from remaining in the US on account of their children. This has been discussed, but since lawyers speak, read, and write their own language I could not tell you where to look for it. Its possible that such a provision is an "in between the lines" thing that is not stated but rather understood. TomStar81 04:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The Library of congress seems to have a nice summary of the bill here and does not seem to mention anything about children of illegal immigrants becoming wards of the state. Most of the items mentioned seem to be correct, but still cannot find anything about the children. Also added the link to the external links section, not realizing that the first linked page contained the link to the summary. And I wrote the wrong number in the edit summary. Psycho Medic 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source needed for Provisions

message: I believe that the Opposition section, as restored by Sysrpl, violates NPOV.  There are arguments in favor and against H.R. 4437; there are supporters and opponents.  I think that it is appropriate to mention the size of the demonstrations against the bill.  However, to mention a litany of arguments against the bill, and none for the bill, is not neutral.  (Also, the arguments, like the provisions, aren't supported by a source.) -Scottwiki 05:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section restored was in the opposition column. That the article is/was unbalanced does not mean it violates the NPOV rule and the detractor's points should be removed, rather someone should add a counter point summary in support of the legislation. Do you feel up to the task? Sysrpl 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been tinkering with the article, and adding links to this article on other relevant articles, but haven't had the time necessary to research the topic in order to make significant improvements.  There must be someone out there who does!  Perhaps you'll be the one.-Scottwiki 05:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition violates NPOV

message: Sources, sources, where are the sources?  Anyone can *claim* anything he or she believes about this bill and the controversy surrounding it.  But on Wikipedia, the policy is to support statements with reliable sources.  -Scottwiki 07:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started to go through the House majority summary and the bill report and searched for keywords to denote the actual sections where language appears. It's a slow process and I would appreciate any help. Calwatch 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Calwatch.  I don't know when I'll have time to help.  (It's been easier for me to attract attention to the page and its problems than to get into the substance of the issues.  I can tinker with the topic in my spare time, but did not feel comfortable analyzing the bill in those spaces of time.)  But if no one comes to your assistance, I'll be glad to ... eventually!.  (Also, it's possible that the Senate will pass a bill soon, which will need to be compared and contrasted to the House version.  So I hope that more people will chip in to carry the workload.)  -Scottwiki 20:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources needed throughout

message: I copyedited the information in the "Protests" section of "H.R. 4437" and moved it to the companion article "2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests". Information should only be in one place. Please review and make any changes deemed appropriate. Accurizer 01:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, a brief summary should be provided in this article as well, which I have taken the liberty to add. Calwatch 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not accurate, Dudtz. Illegal immigrants do have rights, just not the full, enumerated rights that citizens (and, to a lesser extent, legal immigrants) have. Remember that the Constitution does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens (other than in those parts that mandate citizenship as a pre-requisite for high public office), thus illegal immigrants have the same rights as citizens when it comes to things like unreasonable searches and seizures, for example. -- Hux 05:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests]]

message: What connection should this article have to United States immigration debate?  Should one be merged into the other?  Should both, plus 2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests, be combined into one large article?  My feeling is that all text concerning legislation should be combined, especially if and when one of the bills is enacted.  The debate and protests should also be merged into one article, since the protests lack much meaning without the substance behind them.  An all-encompassing article would be reasonable, since the bills, the debate, and the protests are all closely linked.  Why make the reader jump from one article to two others, when a single article can tell the whole story? -Scottwiki 01:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the legislation passes, then this article and the "debate" article should be merged, as the debate is about the bill. If it doens't pass then it should all be merged with the protests, which will be more significant than a failed bill. -Will Beback 21:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it should be merged.  Even though related, the legislation and the protests should be separate (or if anything, the protest should be a subsection of the bill)--Jimktrains 17:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[H.R. 4437]], [[United States immigration debate]], and [[2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests]]

message: ALIEN SMUGGLING AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section274.(a)(1) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES- Whoever-- (C) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States, or to attempt to reside in or remain in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or remain in the United States;
This is the actual text. The existing law is very similar, available at 8 U.S.C. 1324. If this new provision is construed to apply to charities and churches, the same is true of existing law. Here is an example of the EXISTING law:
8 U.S.C. 1324(A)(1)(a)(ii) "knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;"
Applying the same logic to existing law that critics of HR 4437 are applying, a charity/church/neighbor that gives an illegal a ride home, or helps them to a soup kitchen, or anything else no matter how benign, could be thrown in prison. Has that happened? No. The current wikipedia article is inserting opinion by taking sides, specifically taking the side of the HR 4437 critics. The critic's position should either be stated as their opinion with no commentary, or at least provide a complete picture by showing how flawed this particular talking point is.
Kaltes 22:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your point. The current law you cite bans transporting aliens in furtherance of violating the law. The proposed law you cite bans assisting, or encouraging an alien to enter or remain in the country. Those are radically different. -Will Beback 23:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual text re: "Prohibit Aid"

message: From the "Provisions" section: "It also reimburses local agencies in the 29 states along the border for costs related to detaining illegal aliens." How did that get in there? There are only four US states on the US-Mexico border: California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Am I missing something? My wild guess is that it should read "29 counties". Anyone? -- Hux 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds right. this page from the University of Houston gives the figure as 24 counties on the border, and I'd assume the discrepancy is due to a slight difference in the definition of what it means for a county to be a "border county" (i.e. one of its borders is the actual Mexican border vs. the county is within X miles of the Mexican border). --Zack 19:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 29 states?

message: This article needs to be moved to a more appropriate name.  It will be obsolete soon when another H.R. 4437 comes around (actually, it already is, considering that bills of the same name have already been introduced in other sessions of Congress).  Does anyone know the naming convention for this type of thing? - Jersyko·talk 21:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: I am shocked and angered that this bill wants to eliminate the Diversity Immigrant Program, which only invites 50,000 LEGAL immigrants annually.
---well, it seems that nobody agrees with your comment, due to the fact that they don't like the Green Card idea. Plus, everyone here is "disguising" the terms for more beautiful ones. Another thing that no one mentioned here: if HomeLand Security is doing their job in the southern border with Mexico, how come Mexicans can cross illegally the border? Are there some corrupt officials who lets this people cross? am I missing something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.165.48 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Diversity Immigrant Visa Program 

message: I don't believe H.R. 4437 is a resolution as previously stated in the first line of the article. I've changed it to House of Representatives bill. --MZMcBride 02:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolutions in a legislative body don't have force or effect. This is a bill, not a resolution. Also, House Resolutions aren't abbreviated H.R., they're abrreviated H.Res.. . --MZMcBride 17:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First line

message: As an unregistered user, I have tried to write more in the "for the bill" paragraphs to balance the article's point of view, but it has continually been erased. Having said this, I would like to point out that this article is very biased against H.R. 4437. All I would like to ask is that a registered user please write more arguments for the bill in order to create a neutral viewpoint and that they not be erased by pro-illegal crusaders. There are many other rational reasons to support H.R. 4437 that have not been listed. Thank you for your time.
                                     -Rob
:I've been watching this page and have not noticed the specifically anti-4437 editing you mention. Perhaps if you list some of the 'pro' arguments here someone will update the article. -- Hux 16:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, register and do it yourself.  --Darth Borehd 05:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias against H.R. 4437

message: I'm not a law student...but is this bill retroactive?
Title VI: Terrorist and Criminal Aliens, Sec. 601
(tyger 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: retroactive

message: A couple questions.  The article says the bill "Sets the minimum sentence for fraudulent documents at 10 years".  Does this mean it sets the minimum sentence for possessing the doccuments, or for making them?
I changed "states that sponsor terror" to "states that sponsor terrorism", since I don't think it's correct to use terror where you mean terrorism, but I could be wrong.  If I am, revert me and accept my appologies.  
What does this section mean: "Prohibits grants to federal, state, or local government agencies that enact or maintain a sanctuary policy. (House Amendment 659, authored by Thomas Tancredo) (withdrawn 12/16/2005 by unanimous consent)"?  That part's no longer in the bill?  Shouldn't that point be moved to a subsection entitled "removed provisions" or some such then?
I marked this sentence as needing a citation: "Millions of individuals, both illegal immigrants and supportive legal residents, have protested against the legislation because of the perception that it will result in mass deportation" because the  way it's phrased it sounsd like that misperception is why the millions protested.  I'd support a change to something like "Millions of individuals, both illegal immigrants and supportive legal residents, have protested against the legislation.  XXX source writes that the protests were motivated by the perception that it will result in mass deportation"
It's not clear to me what the bill's status is.  It was passed by the house, does that mean its laws are active?  In that case, we should change the wording from the hypothetical ("the bill would...").  
I did some other copy editing and wording changes that I doubt will cause any trouble, but if they do let me know here or on my talk page.  delldot | talk 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 109th Congress ended without Senate passage, so the bill's status is defunct.--Carwil 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding that update, Carwil!  delldot | talk 06:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording questions

message: Hello. I decided to change the commas around in the first section. I felt it would be more grammatically correct. Article is off to a great start!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julietabulie (talk • contribs) 23:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commas 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catholic.org/views/views_news.php?id=19737&pid=0
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006b/041406/041406h.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060330034027/http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/immbillsection.pdf to http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/immbillsection.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060714063016/http://poll.gallup.com:80/content/default.aspx?ci=1660 to http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1660
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060408080837/http://www.cnn.com:80/2006/US/04/02/coverstory.tm/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/02/coverstory.tm/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222023755/http://save.greencard.by:80/ to http://save.greencard.by
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060411082007/http://www.ilrc.org:80/HR4437.php to http://www.ilrc.org/HR4437.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060409042121/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu:80/paperchase/2006/03/senate-judiciary-committee-drops.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/03/senate-judiciary-committee-drops.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060409041505/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu:80/forumy/2006/04/moral-choice-in-immigration-policy.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/04/moral-choice-in-immigration-policy.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. 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/20060330034027/http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/immbillsection.pdf to http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/immbillsection.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060714063016/http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1660 to http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1660
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/02/coverstory.tm/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://save.greencard.by/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ilrc.org/HR4437.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/03/senate-judiciary-committee-drops.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/04/moral-choice-in-immigration-policy.php
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) 14:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified