Talk:Immigration/Archive 2

International vs. internal
The article seems to be restricted to international (im)migration. This should be reflected in the titel, or the article should be broadened. Alenepaagata (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Compare Immigration_to_the_United_States -- Is this article better now? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmarquez96, Yeseniagarcia, FarahA89. Peer reviewers: Yeseniagarcia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AngelMarieSimmons.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jakesterlewis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Archive.org - Wayback machine
https://web.archive.org/web/20060907102226/http://www.nidi.knaw.nl/web/html/pushpull/index.html

This is listed as a "dead link". You can use this one instead. 141.20.215.60 (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Female immigration?
Hi Wikipedians! I'm Michelle and I was thinking of possibly writing a new article (or at least add a new section) about trends in female immigration. I know female immigrants tend to be more susceptible to domestic violence, not to mention the whole mail-order brides phenomenon. What are your guys's thoughts, and does everyone think this should a separate article or a section in the current one? Mjiang94 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Michelle! I would suggest creating the new article in your sandbox to determine whether or not it has enough content to be considered its own article. You can also start by writing the content as a new section in this page, then moving it to a new article if it becomes too large to fit here. Either way, don't let that stop you from contributing. If you make a new page and there's an agreement that it should be merged here, that can always be done later. --Iamozy (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Immigrant rights
I was surprised there was not an article for Immigrant rights, so I went ahead and redirected the page to this article for now. Are any editors interested in expanding this redirect? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

For the health section -- new book
This new book may be relevant for expanding the health section to cover immigrants' health, too: The Health of Newcomers: Immigration, Health Policy, and the Case for Global Solidarity, by Patricia Illingsworth and Wendy E. Parmet, 2017, New York University Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2018
73.95.248.149 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018
Change 'take-up', in the first paragraph, to 'take up'. Bennett Jester (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Where they do not posses citizenship in 1st sentence
If a person buys citizenship in one of the countries that offers, if they renounce in one they are expatriating there, and emigrating from it, but if they are not immigrating to the other what then? 98.4.124.117 (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Noting also that a number of countries don't require you to be there to do the tx. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

CIS and lead section changes
, please don't reinsert the CIS material or water down the language in the lead section as you've done here and on several other occasions. Please read Identifying reliable sources (CIS is not a reliable source). It's especially poor practice to juxtapose claims from advocacy groups with actual findings from peer-reviewed research. See also Neutral point of view ("Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements....Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view."). --Neutralitytalk 02:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential benefits of mass migration
Hi, could you clarify what you meant here. What other directions would those be? My edit was based on de Borjas's article where he assesses other evaluations of potential benefits and builds a model to estimate how many people would have to move. Ultimately it's not that sophisticated, most of these huge numbers are calculated under the assumption that people would move from low to high GPD per capita countries and thus would increase the total GPD. Alaexis¿question? 18:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Specifying the movement of migration from developing to developed seems unnecessary. There are GDP gains from all forms of migration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That might be true, but it's not what is written in the article. The article presents specific numbers of foregone benefits and it's important (according to the article I added, it's not just my opinion) that you get these numbers assuming scenarios of massive immigration flows in a certain direction. Unless one of the estimates mentioned in the article (gains of 67 and 147 percent of the world GDP) refers to a scenario not involving massive immigration from developing to developed countries, I think we need to keep it in the article. Alaexis¿question? 12:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Fourteenth citation irrelevant to cited phrase
The fourteenth citation only demonstrates that 50% of variability explaining a random citizen of the Earth's personal income is explained by nationality. It is only evidence that some countries have more wealth than others.

It does not as is inferred make any reference as to whether immigration between countries of varying development levels reduces overall/total poverty rates.

I can't remove the citation since my account is too new so if someone could take the time to remove that would be great thank you.

Or if I'm making a logical error let me know.

Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The study clear suggests that is the case. Here's from the study's conclusion: "Thus, own efforts, hope that one’s country does well, and migration are three ways in which people can improve their global income position." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I know, it it obvious that immigration can have vast improvement to an individuals personal income. (Ie. They are able to make much more money in a wealthier country) However, it does not address the heart of the issue of what the impact on total poverty is. The phrase cited is worded so as to seem to claim that this study examined the effect of migration on poverty levels as a whole, whereas in reality it was only examining the effect on the individuals having migrated. If the citation is to remain it should clarify that it is only referring to the immigrants income and not an analysis of poverty rates in the country as a whole. Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede doesn't specify that it's "poverty reduction" in a country though. It seems perfectly fine with me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree, I feel that the citation is being misleading in the phrase it is being attributed to. Does anyone else have an opinion seems like me and @Snooganssnoogans are at a bit of an impasse. Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Immigration and crime section
'' (Re-written for clarity after a misunderstanding and diversion related to the topic of size.) ''

This issue doesn't relate to this article only, but for the purposes of this discussion am confining it to immigration-related crime.

When I looked at the Crime section in this article and then also at the "child" article to which it is directed, Immigration and crime, there was about 95% overlap with the first couple of paragraphs from the Immigration and crime section in that ("child") article and the Immigration section in this ("parent") article. I first did what seemed logical to me, to update the "child" article with a couple of facts which were not included there (with attribution duly noted) and then delete the text under Immigration here altogether, changing the redirection from a Further type to a Main one. This would serve to reduce the size of this article (although not critical in this case) as well as avoid future errors and duplication when edits are made in the child article but not the parent. My delete was reverted as unnecessary - with some justification, as I found when reading up further on the topic in WP:SPLIT, which does say that a summary should be left in the parent.

However in this case, it seems more appropriate to copy the lead from Immigration and crime to Immigration, rather than use the first couple of paragraphs in Immigration and crime section - which doesn't define nor summarise it, surely? Any objections if I change this?

My main interest in this as a general topic is to try to streamline the information for readability, consistency and veracity, so I am looking for ideas on how best to maintain integrity in cases where new articles are hived off from a parent article. Questions: How long should the summary in the parent article be, and how many citations does it need? Should it repeat a great deal of what is in the new article, as this one does/did? Do we rely on future editors to ensure similar modification in both section and new article if necessary, or is there a direction that can be given to add new material to the child article only? Should the general rule be to use the lead in the child article as the summary in the parent article section?

Somewhat related to this particular topic... There are a lot of articles relating to immigration in different countries, some with Crime sections and at least one (Germany) having a whole article relating to immigrant-related crime in that country. It would be nice to see some more consistency in the treatment of the topic in each country. - it would be great if you can contribute to the discussion here as you have been editing a number of these articles recently and I would appreciate your input. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * We should summarize the immigration and crime article. There's nothing wrong AFAIK about duplicating an existing summary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As the section stood/stands it was/is WP:SOAPBOXing in favour of legalizing immigrants. I deleted an analysis based on a city in Texas, as the section's scope is "worldwide". It is not the job of enWP to suggest policy changes. AadaamS (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, u|Snooganssnoogans and u|AadaamS. Having read WP:SS closely and then learnt how to do transclusions, I decided that the best course of action was to use the current lead section in the child article by transcluding it. (My recent issue was about using the wrong section from the child article as the summary, not whether its okay to copy it, having established that earlier). It ended up requiring quite a lot of work because of the many citations only referred to by ref name in the lead, but I first moved nearly all of those up to the lead in the child article, so that the transclusion would work (dropped a couple as the number seemed excessive for a lead, and the info and citations occurred elsewhere in the article anyway). I am not suggesting that the lead in Immigration and crime is perfect, btw - at this point I was only interested in the mechanics of the edit process. But at least any future editing will be reflected in both places now.


 * u|AadaamS Fair enough about that Texas citation. And there's probably a lot else which needs review (as mentioned, I haven't really focussed on content as yet), but I think I'm done with these for now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019
best immigration consultancy in bangalore Kabitha (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: WP:LINKSPAM NiciVampireHeart 06:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Layoff
Hello,

I just have a few questions on the layout of the article. Please fill free to comment if you agree or disagree with me. Why should "Social Capital" "Health" "Housing" have their own section. I feel they all can be easy sub sections under a bigger section. I just do not know which section it can go under. But I just feel they are taking too much space being their own section. I would like to applause the editors that created the "Crime" section. It sounds like there is no bias language and it is clean. I mean this by they are sticking to the facts and not "original research". Jmmonty16 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Difference between Invasion & Immigration
A section to differentiate this article from the article on invasion would be useful. 121.45.172.20 (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

A feel like a consolidated "Criticism" section could improve this article and reduce subjective bias
121.45.169.83 (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not endorse nationalism. Globalism is the only acceptable religion around here. You'll learn that quickly as you try to make edits. 121.45.172.20 (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No indeed. Yhdwww (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Weird Health section
I removed UNDUE anecdotal (=not representative) 21c London only statistics. I introduced at least a part of the missing elephant into the room: immigrants directly cause epidemics and nowadays, also pandemics.

See this sample ref I used in my edit for starters: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3296

Who tried to shot this "elephant"?

-> Let us elaborate on the obvious.

Zezen (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

not sure what term for non-immigrant is
Given this requirement:
 * in order to settle as permanent residents or naturalized citizens

Given the prerequisite for naturalization is usually a period of permanent residency (example: 5 years in United States) I think we could actually simplify that to:
 * in order to settle as permanent residents

There exist people who visit countries who visit without an intention of acquiring permanent residency. They would for example get an O visa rather than the version-for-immigrants EB-1A (officially, E11 or E16).

What is the proper term for non-immigrants then... would you just say "visitor" or is there a more specific term for it? How are O visa users classified differently from immigrant EB-1A users?

Hopefully a better term than "non-immigrant" exists here since that obviously describes people who don't visit other nations too. A term that only specifies those who do visit other nations.

"Tourist" is one term that comes to mind but I'm not sure if that would be broad enough to describe all such people or if there is a broader hypernym which would encompass tourists and "insert other nouns" as a higher-up category.

Plus I'm also not sure what hypernym would encompass both immigrants and this other category I'm asking about. 64.228.90.251 (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Natives' unwillingness to do certain work
The article currently says: Immigrants may often do types of work that natives are largely unwilling to do, contributing to greater economic prosperity for the economy as a whole: for instance, Mexican migrant workers taking up manual farm work in the United States has close to zero effect on native employment in that occupation, which means that the effect of Mexican workers on U.S. employment outside farm work was therefore most likely positive, since they raised overall economic productivity.

The source for it is. The important point that is missing in the passage above is that "employers were required to offer immigrant jobs to U.S. workers first on identical terms." Then it becomes completely unsurprising that very few Americans were willing to take up these job offers. If there were no migrants the demand for workers would have adjusted to the labour supply.

So it would be more accurate to summarise the findings by saying that "Natives are often unwilling to do some types of work for the wages earned by immigrants" (assuming we can generalise from one study). However this is so obvious that I'm not sure what value it would add to the article. Alaexis¿question? 22:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Phrasing
Why do you say that "small negative effect" does not work in English? I'm not a native speaker but I see that these words appear a lot in google books and articles. In any case perhaps you could help me find a better way to phrase what the source says.

"immigration can account for  a  relatively  small  share (4–6 percent)  of  the  rise  in  overall  wage  inequality over the past 25 years"

The current wording has a somewhat different meaning. "Overall immigration has not had much negative effect on native wage inequality" can mean insignificant negative effect, zero effect or positive effect, whereas the source talks about the immigration as a contributing factor. Alaexis¿question? 20:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the whole thing again.
 * 1. You can say "It has a small negative effect." That stresses that it does have an effect, but it's a small one. If you want to use your original phrase, it needs to be "it has little effect".
 * 2. The original phrase was "Overall immigration has not had much effect on native wage inequality, but low-skill immigration has been linked to greater income inequality in the native population." Not only do I not see how "not much effect" is unclear; more importantly the sentence compared overall immigration and low-skill immmigration and their respective effects on the native population. You have dropped the "native" in the first part and divided them with a semicolon, which completely takes away the meaning. I assume this was unintentional, so I'll revert that part.
 * 3. As to the phrasing of "not much" or "(a) small/little effect" or "small share", we should discuss that part here separately.
 * Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I like how it reads now. Alaexis¿question? 15:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Me too. Glad we could agree on a compromise. --Yhdwww (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

US/Eurocentric
For those cases there is probably the most scholarly literature to draw from for this article, but nevertheless it seems to ignore most regions of the globe experiencing significant immigration as well. There is already löittle to nothing about clssic western immigration countries like Australia and Canada. Nothing about Latin America, the Gulf States, South Africa, East Asian countries, India.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation overload
There's no way you're actually going to defend a claim with over 30 citations to be in line with WP:OVERCITE, right? Even by using a "megacite" (link me to the guideline for this) we should still be trimming at least half of them as I refuse to believe there is no redundant or shared information between them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CITEMERGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2022
The suggestion below seeks to add detail about visa requirements for economic migrants, referencing a recent survey, to enrich the current article.

In the "Economic Migrant" section:

From: Many countries have immigration and visa restrictions that prohibit a person entering the country for the purposes of gaining work without a valid work visa. As a violation of a State's immigration laws a person who is declared to be an economic migrant can be refused entry into a country.

To: Many countries have immigration and visa restrictions that prohibit a person entering the country for the purposes of gaining work without a valid work visa. Factors such as financial costs, process predictability, and duration of visas affect economic migrants' access to different destination countries. As a violation of a State's immigration laws a person who is declared to be an economic migrant can be refused entry into a country. Mitzilulu (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The proposed sentence doesn't relate much to the paragraph's topic. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2022 (2)
The suggestion below aims to complement empirical evidence of immigrants' innovative advantage already in the article, citing private sector perspectives that illustrate how the link between immigrants and innovation is being applied & perceived at a tactical level.

Proposed additional detail & reference to the "Economic Effects" section, subsection: "Innovation and Entrepreneurship" :

From: One analysis found that immigrant-owned firms had a higher innovation rate (on most measures of innovation) than firms owned by U.S.-born entrepreneurs.[220] Research also shows that labor migration increases human capital.[71][69][70][72][221]

To: One analysis found that immigrant-owned firms had a higher innovation rate (on most measures of innovation) than firms owned by U.S.-born entrepreneurs.[220] 45% of 850+ executives surveyed by the Boston Consulting Group in 2021 considered global diversity to be a strategic advantage, and over one third of respondents also cited that they had observed benefits of global diversity on their firms' creativity, agility, flexibility, and product insights. Research also shows that labor migration increases human capital.[71][69][70][72][221] Mitzilulu (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Overstating simple stuff with big words is not needed. We already have a summary, we don't need the specific data, per related guidelines. The same goes for your edit request. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Immigration Schild.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022
Change: Offering fake immigrant visas in order to make impossible to the employees the return to their countries. To: Offering fake immigrant visas in order to make it impossible for employees to return to their countries. Gubagab0oni (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 07:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice
— Assignment last updated by CooperR.Anthony (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

New World Map 2022 since the map is Form 2016 and is not updated
I suggest to change the world map to a more updated one. 2016 is already half decade ago. BrandonRaid123 (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Form* BrandonRaid123 (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)