Talk:Immigration policy of Donald Trump/Archive 1

This is about his presidential campaign, not his presidency
How is this going to work? All of this information is about his campaign, not about his current policy as president. Basically, it's all talk he did when he had no power. What do we do? A different article for his presidential immigration policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandiego91 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I divided it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandiego91 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. Especially for Trump, who has changed his positions often, it is important to distinguish what his proposed policies as a candidate are and what his current policies (during his administration). I'm going to start pushing some content off this article to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and remove from here as we gain consensus CatapultTalks (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I included a bunch of points I think need to be included above and put links, can you take a look and see what you think?Tovegrant (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Lawsuits
You have been very diligent in creating articles about each of the current lawsuits against the executive order. But I wonder if it is really appropriate or necessary to have a separate article for each lawsuit? I would hope that at some point very soon, they will be combined into a single article (not sure what to call it) with redirects from the individual cases (of which there will probably be more). What do you and others think? --MelanieN (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your call Melanie. Whatever you think is best, please feel free to combine them.  I just finished the fourth one.  They are all slightly different with different approaches depending on the legal status of their plaintiffs. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to sleep on it and hope for more input. There's no hurry. Keep up the good work. --MelanieN (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just made the same suggestion at User talk:Octoberwoodland. That would be more informative to readers, and provide a good destination for other cases which are sure to spring up. — JFG talk 07:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just finished reading the morning news and by all appearances, it certainly looks like we are about to be awash with many many more lawsuits filed against Trump on this topic to the point we may get buried with them. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lawsuits and all redirects updated to a single article -> Lawsuits against the immigration policy of Donald_Trump Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, October! That was a big job. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not over yet, another deluge of lawsuits got filed today. I am waiting to get the filings before adding them into that article.  It looks like its going to be a BIG article.  You were right on in getting it to a single article, we are about to be buried in lawsuit filings. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, we may need that lawsuit article placed under semi-protection. Your call.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the articles should all go on one page. We have no idea where they are going to go.Michael E Nolan (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Michael E Nolan

Maybe just have a paragraph on the law suits and then link to a new page which discusses them all Tovegrant (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was overturned to no consensus as the result of a move review. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The original close was: pages(s) moved per clear consensus. There was previous precedent, in addition to the consensus shown here. Please refer to, Barack Obama et al. -- QEDK ( 愛 ) 08:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Addendum: The tally stands 13/5 (which points to almost a 3/4th majority), hence I've labelled it as "clear consensus". I've considered the facts that the Trump's own positions should be separated from his administration but there's no resolute reason to, considering he's the head of the executive now, he does supersede other positions such as his own opinion, if there's a deviation from status quo, feel free to fork content from this article or better, add sections within policy articles themselves as comparison. (non-admin closure) -- QEDK ( 愛 ) 21:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

– Donald Trump is now President, and thus it makes sense to move said articles to reflect the policies of the wider administration. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Immigration policy of Donald Trump → Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration
 * Social policy of Donald Trump → Social policy of the Donald Trump administration
 * Economic policy of Donald Trump → Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration
 * Foreign policy of Donald Trump → Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration
 * Agree ✅ HelgaStick (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree ✅, but move relevant existing content into Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign. That article itself is too long, so may be create new page Immigration policy of Donald Trump 2016 Presidential Campaign and so on? CatapultTalks (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Icons are neither necessary nor conventional in WP:RM discussions, and are distracting.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm dead-set against forking Trump's statements during the campaign to some out-in-the-bushes-article that no one will be able to find or read. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with you on that, Snooganssnoogans.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, per WP:COMMONSENSE and greater encyclopedic accuracy, especially given increasing reliably sourced evidence that the policies are being set by others than Trump himself, like Bannon and Pence.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but remove Donald. the Trump administration is plenty precise for this. Dicklyon (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional support per Dicklyon. Srnec (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dicklyon Good afternoon (talk to me.) 13:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, would be reasonable; but i would note that the current content of the article is mainly about Trump′s attitudes/pronouncements on foreign policy rather that of his administration′s (I meant Foreign policy of Donald Trump).Axxxion (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, with the caveat that these sections should continue to reflect Trump's history of statements on these issues. In other words, we shouldn't remove all statements he did prior to the campaign or prior to him taking office as President. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The current articles were forked out from Political positions of Donald Trump and reflect the positions of candidate Trump and analysis thereof. The actual policies of the Trump administration should be covered as they unfold in entirely new articles (which may of course refer to the candidate's positions to compare and contrast). — JFG talk 10:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to hold the same views; can you clarify if you would prefer separate articles for the candidate's positions (current articles) and the President's administration (new articles) or lumping everything in the same place? — JFG talk 10:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They should be lumped in the same place. I don't think we should privilege the statements made by Trump after winning the election than those made before it. The promises that he made during the campaign and positions espoused are relevant to the policies that he enacts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. As things unfold, the election campaign period material can be condensed and appropriately modified, still relevant.Axxxion (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, conditional on keeping some of Trump's campaign promises/statements within the articles. The presidential campaign informs (but does not dictate) the presidency. Orser67 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per - there is a place for the varying views of Trump as a person/candidate and another for the actions of his administration which may or may not align with those views.  suggests that Bannon/Pence et al. will be influencing policy - I agree but see this as a reason to have separate articles. |→ Spaully τ  09:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – Is the word "Donald" necessary in this request? "Trump administration" is certainly more common than "Donald Trump administration". With few exceptions (J. Adams/J.Q. Adams, W.H. Harrison/B. Harrison, A. Johnson/L.B. Johnson, T. Roosevelt/F.D. Roosevelt, G.H.W. Bush/G.W. Bush), I don't see the need for including anything other than the president's last name followed by "administration". Master of Time   ( talk ) 18:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Prior presidents have their full name, e.g. we have Economic policy of the Barack Obama administration, Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration. If you feel strongly about this, perhaps you can file another multi-move request for all affected presidents after this one concludes. — JFG talk 23:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Followup comment If we need separate articles (JFG makes a reasonable point), the pre-presidency one should not be named "Immigration policy of Donald Trump"; a candidate does not set policy. It would have to be something else, such as "Immigration stance of the Donald Trump campaign" or something.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For most of the world, these articles are adequately named. Candidates do announce policies. Agree that new articles on the policies of the Trump administration would be a good idea, the existing articles are long enough and should stay focussed on the policies announced before the election, and there should be no problem finding material and editors to build these new articles. Would not oppose renames for the current articles that preserve the current topic and focus, if their current titles are confusing to Americans. Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. It is the administration's policies that matter, not personal opinions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ✅, but move relevant existing content into Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign or its subpages as addressed above.--Carwil (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per JFG. This article is principally about the positions of the man himself, and the articles are a fork of the main positions articles, which date back to before his presidency. Some of them may specifically not be the views of his administration. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support without Donald per . All of these articles were created after the election, two after the inauguration, so it is appropriate focus their contents on the policies of the administration, and to title them accordingly. (Note: I undid a previous !vote in opposition, but then did more research and changed my mind). --В²C ☎ 21:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think there should be separate articles about the opinions of Donald Trump and the actual policies of the Trump administration. The actual policies of the Trump administration are brand new and not fully formed, but may be substantially different than the opinions Trump has previously subscribed to.--Aervanath (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Addition of refugee policy
I am interested in adding information specifically about the Trump administration's actions regarding refugees. Of course, the section would focus on the recent executive actions. Any input or guidance regarding this preliminary bibliography is appreciated.

Origins and President Trump’s actions:

U.S. State Department. 2016. “Visa Waiver Program.” https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-program.html
 * This lists the seven countries referenced in President Trump’s executive order. The list was first compiled by the Obama administration.

The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. 2017. “Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. 2017. “Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.”https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united

The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. 2017. “Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Provisions.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/executive-order-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements


 * Asylum officers placed on southern border security detail. I will find information concerning how this may affect legitimate asylum seekers.
 * Seeks to end manipulation of asylum policies to for the purposes of allowing potentially removable persons in the country

The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. January 31, 2017. “Statement by Press Secretary Sean Spicer.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/31/statement-press-secretary-sean-spicer

I also plan to reference various Twitter posts the President has released.

Legal Challenge:

Reuters. February 3, 2017. “Seattle judge blocks immigration ban after Boston judge refused to extend stay.” Washington Post. http://nypost.com/2017/02/03/seattle-judge-blocks-immigration-ban-after-boston-judge-refused-to-extend-stay/

United States District Court for the Western district of Washington at Seattle. 2017. “Robart Order.” Contributed by David Gutman of The Seattle Times. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3446391-Robart-Order.html


 * Explains U.S. District Judge Robart’s ruling blocking the executive order

Rusty shackleford (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please quote secondary reliable sources while you do this CatapultTalks (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Anchor baby" usage
In the Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump section, there is a mention of children of illegal immigrants being referred as "anchor babies" - Trump used the word, but he isn't the first one to use it. My edit clarifies that. please comment your concerns here before reverting. CatapultTalks (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of what relevance is it that others have used it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * whom he refers to as "anchor babies" - seems to indicate that he came up with this term. The Politifact article for this clearly states that - Some, like Trump, refer to these children as "anchor babies." CatapultTalks (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to indicate that he came up with the term at all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks CatapultTalks (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It really does imply he created the term. The bias is obvious. Had Trump invented a new word for this activity, it would be reasonable to say "Trump refers to them as x". More accurate for it to say "so as not to grant citizenship to US-born children of illegal immigrants (commonly referred to as "anchor babies"). RenderedToast (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I changed it to "sometimes called anchor babies". I would not say "commonly referred to" since the term is not in general use; it is only used by one particular segment of the political divide, and its use implies an anti-immigration sentiment. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reverted my change. Snoogans, let's talk about it. I think it is dishonest to say he refers to them that way without some context showing that he is not the only one who uses that term. I see that I am not the first to have made this change and been reverted by you. In fact this section looks to me as if three people (CatapultTalks, RenderedToast, and myself) object to the wording you prefer. Can we talk about consensus, please? --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that a discussion had continued beyond the dialogue between me and CT. My comments are below. There are two things that I find a bit confusing: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * First, I'm confused as to why this article should mention the trivia that *some* refer to babies born to foreign mothers as anchor babies. Seeing as how its a pejorative term, why mention it at all, unless it describes something about Trump (that *he* uses the term)? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Second, I don't see at all how someone can leave with the impression that he coined the term, given that it's is a known pejorative term and denotes a particularly strong dislike for birthright citizenship. It's not a term that proponents of stricter immigration laws generally use, but rather a term that more extreme politicians use. That Trump *uses* the term is valuable info. It's a bit as if Trump opposed Obamacare on the rationale that they contained "death panels" and someone would change text in his article to "he opposed a provision of Obamacare on end-of-life care (which some refer to as "death panels")" when it would probably be more descriptive to denote that *he* uses that lingo: "he opposed a provision of Obamacare on end-of-life care (which he referred to as "death panels")? Nobody would leave with the impression that he coined the term 'death panels', but they'd know that he uses inflammatory language about Obamacare. I hope I get my point across. I'm sure there's a better hypothetical out there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions
Re this and this. Those edits violate TWO of the discretionary sanctions in effect on this page. First, they violate the 1RR restriction. Second they violate the restriction on reverting challanged edits. This is long standing text. CatapultTalks changed it in the first edit with a false edit summary claiming it was a "copy edit". I undid that, effectively challanging the changes. They then restored their preferred version, violating discretionary sanctions.

The changes also remove well sourced text and POV the wording.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * First, stop reverting my good faith edits without discussion. if you'd like to challenge something start in the talk page. please point out portions that are "False" or "POV" sentences - so we can get into a constructive discussion CatapultTalks (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No, first, stop making changes in violations of discretionary sanctions. You've violated 1RR and you've violated the part which says "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I broke down my edits into 4-5 separate ones and gave descriptions to each. Hope this would address content concerns, if you had any -- CatapultTalks (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Mass deportation -> Mass deportation of illegal immigrants
I'm going to rename the section to "Mass deportation of illegal immigrants" since that's what the sources refer to Trump's immigration plan as. If anyone have different views, let's discuss here CatapultTalks (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Kate's law
An edit, supported by sources, that I made regarding Kate's law has been reverted without basis. I'm going to restore it, please comment here for the reason you'd revert it. CatapultTalks (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Procedural close pending outcome of the move review for the recent title change — JFG talk 08:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

– No need for "Donald" in these titles. This was suggested by in the last RM, and there was considerable support, but apparently not enough for the closer to put it into effect, so I'm addressing that issue alone in this RM. Just searching NY Times we get 326k hits for "trump administration" when we exclude "donald trump administration", and only 26k hits for "donald trump administration". That difference is over 10 times, and is strong basis for this move per WP:COMMONNAME. В²C ☎ 21:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration → Immigration policy of the Trump administration
 * Social policy of the Donald Trump administration → Social policy of the Trump administration
 * Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration → Economic policy of the Trump administration
 * Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration → Foreign policy of the Trump administration

CN¥
 * Yes, but we should do the same with the various Barack Obama administration articles; and maybe others before him. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unless all the other related articles (e.g. Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government; Economic policy of the Stephen Harper government; Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration) are moved. Laurdecl talk 02:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Guadalupe García de Rayos in the lede?
A mention about this deported person was added to the lede terming it as ".. was iconic". I doubt it will withstand the test of time. Also, the edit talks about her children which is not relevant per WP:BLP. This was challenged and edited to a more neutral version in the main text, but somehow the POV continues to be mentioned in the lede. Is there a reasonable explanation? I've also added back a sourced statement by ICE on this case which was reverted. (in the edit summary, I wrongly typed redundant instead of relevant. My bad) CatapultTalks (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just seen this section. I have removed that sentence - her case was processed during the Obama era ending in a removal order, ICE deny it has anything to do with Trump, and she is not notable except for this deportation.  To me it doesn't belong in the article let alone lead. |→ Spaully ~talk~  21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this article neutral? And is this article written based on recent policy changes?
I think one of the sub-sections, Mass deportation of illegal immigration, is not neutral statement. Obama was already deporting people, and when you say "mass deportation" sounds like bias. If would be more neutral if you could say "Deportation Force Plan" as Trump argued. Also, "Proposed Muslim Immigration Plan" has a good timeliness of his proposal until August 2016. Some sentences need to update citation with current policy changes in Muslim immigration plan. Dongchanyang (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, the section name does not appear to be neutral, and appears to favor a certain POV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Same, it doesn't seem like a NPOV.  Sergeant Davin(talk) 23:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

godddammit / Illegal vs undocumented
I was in the process of fixing the urls -- the problem can be FIXED without a massive GODDAMM SUBSTANTIVE REVERSION. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This was originally inserted by an IP with this search-and-replace - - which would be vandalism (as it broked URL and refs - massively). The article was using "illegal" prior to this IP edit. Heads up this page is open at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Apologies if I created an edit conflict - the vandalism comment was unclear and I thought that the rationale as to why this was alleged vandalism was missed.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Illegal vs undocumented: I would support changing the prose to "undocumented" as more neutral. Would there be any objections to this? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is Trump's bio somehow less neutral as it mentions "undocumented Polish workers" once and "illegal immigration" or "illegal immigrants" six times? Back to this article: I would guess that majority of sources say "undocumented", but many sources say "illegal immigration", or "illegal immigrants", or "unauthorized immigrants", so changing "illegal" to "undocumented" blindly wouldn't be completely faithful to sources. In some cases "undocumented" doesn't make that much sense: are visa-holders or deported people really undocumented? I saw "undocumented mother" in one source, which sounded like newspeak. In some cases "undocumented" would be okay. I don't think we need to be 100% consistent. Politrukki (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Use of "illegal" or "undocumented" must be assessed depending on context. We must check what the sources say and what the underlying meaning is in each case. The very use of one word or the other is part of the discourse between opposing views of this issue. — JFG talk 07:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with JFG. People convicted and deported for illegally immigrating are probably treated different than DREAMers in sources. Statements from anti and pro immigration sources differ. Enforcement agencies act versus illegality and not the technicality of being undocumented, whereas pro-immigration activists don't believe people they are helping should be illegal. Trump himself probably uses one term more than the other (and we are covering his views here). Blanket usage in either direction does not correctly reflect usage in sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * User:K.e.coffman - use of 'illegal' or 'undocumented' -- or 'unlawful' and other words -- must be judged in context. All of these are proper terms in different circumstances, although all of these are also used in partisan positioning wordgames and dog whistles.  I would say generally one should just follow the cites try to use the labels they do, with awareness that wordgames may make a NPOV need to use both terms or multiple terms.  Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Nomoskedasticity, I was going to say that you would still need consensus to reinstate challenged edits, but apparently arbitration remedies such as "consensus required" and 1RR don't apply to pages under WP:ARBAPDS. Well, live and learn. Politrukki (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Immigration policy of Donald Trump. 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/20150929153557/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform to https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

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) 08:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Shithole countries
Sorry for the section heading. But, words are words. We'll have to deal with this somewhere. O3000 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And despite Trump claiming he didn't use the word on Twitter, it has been confirmed by Dick Durbin (there are umpteen other sources, if necessary). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Slur?
In the first paragraph of the 'Positions on immigration' section, I recently changed a word to exactly what the source stated, replacing 'undocumented' with 'illegal', and an editor reverted my change saying that the term 'illegal' is a slur. Firstly, the term 'undocumented' is a loaded term (ie not neutral) in that it implies that the only issue is the fact that the person does not have required documentation whereas the reality is that these individuals quite correctly don't have required documents as they have no entitlement to the documents as they are in the USA illegally. Secondly, it is not for us to substitute the wording in the sources because we prefer it had said something different. Thirdly, it is not a slur to refer to someone who has moved to the country illegally as an illegal immigrant - that is, pure and simple, an accurate description. Changing the term to 'undocumented' is changing to a political loaded word. What next - is someone going to change the very first word in the lead from 'Illegal' to 'Undocumented'? This is ridiculous. Birtig (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We should follow the reliable sources. If it has recently become a slur then it might be worth considering looking at newer sources, but I would not really say that is the case for illegal. Please tag this other user so they can discuss. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've warned about the violation of discretionary sanctions that occurred with the second reversion of that word. Administrators will likely take a very dim view of this issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with "illegal" being used in a quote, but it should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. But the problem here is less about the content, and more about the violation of sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the change I made at Scjesseys insistence so the citation now misquotes the title of the source. I can not believe that Wikipedia policy would be to deliberately misquote the titles of articles that are used in articles. By the way, for the record, I was reverted for correcting the use of the word in the article so did not change that word again. I didn't honestly believe that it would also apply to correcting the quoted title in the citation!!! I am learning very quickly about the nature of Wikipedia!!! Birtig (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't dare change it myself but are you aware that the very first word in the lead is 'Illegal'? I assume someone will want to change it to 'Undocumented' to be consistent with the rest of the article...Birtig (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think illegal is a slur, but if it is that big of a deal then just say illegal/undocumented immigrants. Poof, problem solved.  Sergeant Davin(talk) 00:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To  Sergeant Davin - Two things about your comment above: 1) There are many instances when it is legal (not illegal) for immigrants to enter the United States with no documents (example: when seeking asylum). 2) There are some people, white, black, brown, & yellow, who enter the United States illegally & that is refereed to as "illegal immigration" (not illegal immigrant - which is a derogatory slur). I hope you understand the huge difference between "illegal immigration" versus calling a human-being an "illegal immigrant" (humans are not "illegal"). Therefore, your phrase "illegal/undocumented immigrant" is just as derogatory and as legally wrong as the slur "illegal immigrant."  BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Is their consensus to change a misquoted title in a citation?
As anyone reading the above section will discover, I recently tried to correct a misquoted title in a citation and have now been advised that it is necessary to gain approval for this before proceeding. The title of the article quoted is Donald Trump wrongly says the number of illegal immigrants is 30 million or higher but it appears in the citation as Donald Trump wrongly says the number of undocumented immigrants is 30 million or higher. Surely it is necessary to quote titles correctly in citations? Does anyone believe that we should keep the misquote? Birtig (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. I got confused between two separate edits that switched "illegal" to "undocumented" and back again. I have restored your correct version and I apologize for my confusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Birtig (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Threat to flora and fauna
Seeking consensus before I act...

I don't see the relevance of the subsection 'Threat to flora and fauna' in a section about "Positions on Immigration". It may be relevant in an article about the proposed wall but is nothing to do with Trump's immigration position. I suggest the whole subsection should be moved to a more appropriate article or deleted. Comments? Birtig (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a consequence of border security, which in turn is a consequence of Trump's immigration policy, so it sort of fits; however, a better place for it (among other places) would be Mexico–United States barrier. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No one else has commented for 10 days so I will remove the subsection and seek to add it in a more appropriate article if the information is not already included. Birtig (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for seeking consensus. The section and its source are directly in response to the building of a border wall which really is part of Mr. Trump's immigration policy. It does not repeat the text used in Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration and contains some information that Wikipedia would be a good deal poorer without. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems quite a stretch to include here, off-topic. No objection to WP:PRESERVE content in a more directly relevant article. — JFG talk 23:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Reversion explanation
It's very, very hard to assume this edit was made in good faith. I've reverted it on the basis that the Obama administration was not mentioned in the cited source, but really it could've been challenged for several other reasons. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And now I've had to revert more edits from the same editor, that apparently sought to sanitize the language and make it seem more friendly to the current administration. Those changes were not supported by the sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And again. This one also violates active arbitration remedies (WP:ARBAPDS) in that it restored challenged material. Perhaps could weigh in? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I have just added the following to my user page so will also add it here:
 * Apologies. My edits have all been intended to be constructive. The article is about the 'Immigration Policy of Donald Trump' so it appeared helpful, when I came across the bit referring to the period 2009 to 2014, to clarify that this was not related to Trump's presidency. I don't understand how that is pushing a point of view - it appeared to me to be simply adding helpful, and factual, information. I later tried to help improve the article by helping to explain the 'zero tolerance' policy: the key change is that all those who cross illegally are now detained and prosecuted. Why that clarification is not helpful is beyond me. I do apologise for adding the same detail - about the period 2009 to 2014 being under Obama's presidency - because I didn't realise it was the same article that I had already added the detail to (it didn't occur that it would have been deleted as I assumed it was helpful and factual clarification.) I have also edited some of the articles relating to Crimea and it is quite common for similar information to appear in different articles so I sometime add the same edit in more than one article. I thought something similar had happened here as I didn't think my change would be objected to. Anyway, I can only apologise: punish me in whatever way you think fair and I will accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birtig (talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There are a bunch pf things that need to be included here
Does anyone care if I add this information? I'm also fine if someone else ants to add it. I don't care if someone else just uses this content and adds it I the appropriate spots or adds to it.

1. Only refugees (both crossing at ports or illegally between) are being admitted without paperwork, migrants are only admitted if they do the paperwork and enter at ports. This is traditional policy.

Migrants and asylum seekers/refugees are different, only asylum seekers are eligible to jump the immigration line because they're considered in danger in their home countries. As far as I understand it's historically been a democrat and republican stance. The refugee admissions in 2017 ware 54, 000, the same as 2007, but down from 84, 000 in 2016. Currently, there's close to 40, 000 refugees and migrants combined that cross the border illegally between ports each month (1 mill total enter the us pr year, many by air I guess). The ones from Mexico are mainly immigrants and the ones from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are the ones who's qualify as refugees (according to the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees and the 1967 UN protocol). The number of illegal crossings has gone up since the nineties when it was in the hundreds but arrests are at a low. In the late 80's it was 1.6 million per year and now moralize 400, 000. Many are coming from South American because they're being turned away for refugee status from Mexico. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5oKlKeXWLQ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/02/26/key-facts-about-u-s-immigration-policies-and-proposed-changes/ https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6061 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVHqV0ibCWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLrf__Rl32Q https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-immigration-fact-check-1.4711267 https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/568546381/arrests-for-illegal-border-crossings-hit-46-year-low http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/18/5-facts-about-the-u-s-rank-in-worldwide-migration/ https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/ https://www.npr.org/2018/06/27/623991930/illegal-immigration-to-the-u-s-by-the-numbers

Since 1980 the us has taken in more legal immigrants (and refugees?) than any other country and has a diversity score of 91. 1 in 4 migrants is in the country illegally, about 44 million legal and 11 million illegal. In 2015 there were 1 million permanent migrants and in 2018 there will be 480, 000 accepted. Other US caps in 2018 are 20, 000 temporary work visas H2b, 65, 000 skilled workers, 140 000 permanent employment, 55, 000 diversity visas. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/18/5-facts-about-the-u-s-rank-in-worldwide-migration/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/03/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/ https://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/10-countries-that-take-the-most-immigrants?slide=8 https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works

2. Refugees who come without paperwork do not have to be admitted but they are, thank goodness. Not sure about those who cross illegally between borders.

According to International common law refugees have to register at the first safe country and then apply to the countries they want to enter, likely so they can learn which countries are near their refugee caps to prevent unnecessary travel. Technically countries can turn refugees away at the border if they jump the refugee line and don't have paperwork when they appear at the border or if they're at their cap for admitting but they've been giving people interviews if they say they think they qualify as a refugee. Not all ask to be considered and people are being rejected if they appear to be wanting entrance as a migrant as opposed a refugee and don't have paperwork. If they want a refugee interview they're being asked to register and get in line but the line is very long. https://wapo.st/2taAvBk https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/sep/21/claim-asylum-uk-legal-position http://www.newsweek.com/caravan-asylum-seekers-turned-away-us-border-told-crossing-full-905446 https://abcnews.go.com/US/asylum-seekers-us-border/story?id=54835812

3. Anyone who crosses a border illegally not at a port is charged and has been since the 1990's (separation is not required but has been legal for a long time if people don't have ID)

Migrants who cross illegally are sent back and refugees who cross illegally are held in detention for a period of time. Parents are charged for illegal entry and smuggling but not as severely as non-family/guardian smugglers. Most sources say only people who cross between borders and were smuggling children who do not have ID showing that they are their own are having them removed (govt and CNN). "For instance, if a child comes with an adult and it can't be verified that the adult is a parent or legal guardian, the adult and child would be separated.” The govt says congress passed the law that they can separate kids if they look like they’re being smuggled by non family members. If so they are classified as unaccompanied. Others say anyone who crossed illegally broke the law and had them removed (CBC) but the govt Is specifically denying this. Technically separation at the border, like is done in airports is new. Obama put separation in place to get around a court order that children were not to be kept in jail with parents but it was late in his term and didn't go into practice. Instead he gave them ankle bracelets which they cut. After this, illegal immigration spiked. There's also been a 314% increase in the number of people claiming to be family who aren't. The are warning signs stating the laws along the Mexican side of the border and officials, who speak Spanish, are distributing flyers with info and a Spanish hotline. While illegally crossing the border is a misdemeanor, doing it a second time is a felony and child smuggling is something more than a misdemeanor, not exactly sure what.

Families declaring themselves as visitors do not have their children removed even if they over stay their time limit and become illegal. Immigrants (not refugees) declaring their intent to stay, who do not have paperwork are turned away. People who cross illegally and have ID showing they have guardianship of the child the right to transport them are not separated. Only people who do not have ID are separated.

"numbers show 21 percent of apprehended adults were referred for prosecution under President Barack Obama. From fiscal year 2010 to fiscal 2016, there were 2,362,966 adults apprehended illegally crossing the Southern border, and 492,970 were referred for prosecution"

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-immigration-fact-check-1.4711267 https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/us/immigration-refugee-child-missing-hhs-obama-photo-trnd/index.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5oKlKeXWLQ https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/fact-check-did-obama-administration-separate-families-n884856 https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1exA8ik5QI

4. Many children are entering with adults who are members of cartels

Families are paying cartels to bring their children (and sometimes themselves as whole families) to the US for $1200-$8000 a person (50, 000 unaccompanied kids from Nov 2014-July 2015), Which many never fish paying off. Children from many countries aren't eligible as refugees and are denied entry so they take them through the desert (8000 ppl have died crossing in last 20 yrs). Ppl are only crossing the dessert with smugglers not on their own or they're being dropped off by them to go on their own. smugglers often leave the kids after getting them there and do not pick them up from group homes. In 2015-2016 there was 500-600 smugglers prosecuted. 30% of kids, mainly older teens, have ties to gangs like ms13, but child smuggling is more prevalent. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/21/are-human-smuggling-cartels-at-the-u-s-border-earning-500-million-a-year/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9267062139eb https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/30/world/smuggling-illegal-immigration-costs.html https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-human-smuggling-across-the-southern-border/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXuELYj_Jhw https://www.channel4.com/news/by/kylie-morris/blogs/on-the-hispanic-child-migrant-trail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVHqV0ibCWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L-1sJptwxs https://www.npr.org/2018/01/26/580802374/border-patrol-crack-down-shines-light-on-rising-number-of-migrant-deaths https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/opinion/migrants-dying-on-the-us-mexico-border.html https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2017/271242.htm https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/21/30-of-border-children-have-gang-ties/

5. Children who come with smugglers who do not get in as a refugee cross illegally or get dumped in Mexico

If the smugglers don't get them into the states they are often killed by cartels or families of the children so they leave them in Mexico by themselves and run. The un says Kids smuggled often get trafficked and abused as well ex: sex trafficking or labour trafficking. 707 cases of sex trafficking from Mexico in 2016. Sometimes they take the same kids through the border over and over if they are sent back. Some times families have to repay each time. While there's two kinds of smugglers, family/guardian and non-family/guardian, this is non-family and they are charged more severely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXuELYj_Jhw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L-1sJptwxs https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2017/271242.htm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1exA8ik5QI

6. The Refugee Relocation office holds kids separated from parents an average of 2-4 days in group homes, not 57 as reported (e.g.: came with an adult and had no ID)

The Texas refugee resettlement facility in the old Walmart they keep showing on the news has 1500 boys and it was opened to house unaccompanied children sent alone on busses to the border so they can wait for foster homes to open up. 90% of the kids there had no adults at all with them when they arrived. When they say the average wait time in such a facility is 57 days there's talking about these kids with no parents waiting for foster parents. The average is 2-4 days at the border and 2-4 days in the facility for kids separated from adults for smuggling (with no ID). From May-June 2018 2300 kids were separated from adults who brought them. The max children (and thus the adult caretakers) can be held is 20 days, then refugees must be settled. In practice they've been releasing entire families after 20 days to go where they wish in the US even if they face smuggling charges and illegal immigrants taken home if they can charge them within the window. Children removed from adults are only classified as unaccompanied in as much as they are put in with the kids who arrived completely unaccompanied on busses with no adults. A court recently ruled all kids have to be returned to parents within 30 days. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/us/immigration-refugee-child-missing-hhs-obama-photo-trnd/index.html https://www.cbsnews.com/news/migrant-children-at-the-border-by-the-numbers/ https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/videos/inside-the-us-largest-licensed-migrant-childrens-center/vp-AAyG1wz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RID6QtJdDcA https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17484546/executive-order-family-separation-flores-settlement-agreement-immigration https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/27/us-immigration-must-reunite-families-separated-at-border-federal-judge-rules

7. The Texas Walmart facility holds unaccompanied kids an average of 57 days while finding foster care (e.g.: came on busses to border, no adults at all)

Only 10% of the kids in the Texas facility (and I'd assume it's the same for other facilities), came with parents and or other adults with no ID and were separated. Everyone else appeared at the border onuses with no accompaniment at all. Only children who cannot be linked to their smuggler are officially categorized as unaccompanied so they can start the application for foster care. I'm not sure how this compares percentage wise to other countries like Canada that separate children at the border. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/us/immigration-refugee-child-missing-hhs-obama-photo-trnd/index.html https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/29/ap-fact-check-fallacies-on-both-sides-in-immigrati/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/canada-detention-children-united-states-1.4709632 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/undocumented-unaccompanied-facts-figures-children-border-n152221

8. Not all facilities use cells, most are nicer, here’s info on conditions

Not all refugee resettlement group homes have cells just the Texas one in the old walmart. First they’re in cells or tents at the border for 2-3 days (because the cells were created when illegal crossers were only adults). It's also not policy to take kids under the age of five if it seems like they're with their mothers (have ID). Not that it's ok to take six yr olds etc. They have pool and video games, basketball, classes etc. kids can use cells and landlines to call parents who also have landlines in their detention centers. adults can also use their own cells. The Walmart facility does not have proper beds or cots just pads on the floor. All of these facilities have been run by the same agency for 15 years butI wonder if there restate specific differences and Texas has a harsher approach? https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/30/illegal-immigrant-children-cost-taxpayers-670-day/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/illegal-immigrant-children-get-first-class-treatme/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/18/children-separated-parents-us-border-held-cages-texas-warehouse/

9. For years kids were housed in foster care but there's been busloads of unaccompanied kids so they're full

Children who came with adults who are being charged, like citizens whose parents are charged, have always gone to family, foster care or group care shelters. But the foster care system filled up with unaccompanied kids many on the buss loads arriving at the border. From Nov 2014 to July 2015 for instance there were 50, 000 kids arrive on busses without parents or adults. Obama opened the large group homes to stay in while they wait for foster parents. Where it can be verified that a child belongs to the adult they came with (eg govenment verification with their country or ID mailed from home) the child will be released back to their care. Obama kept them with their families in detention centers for a while but the courts said that was punishing the child along with the adult. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/child-migrants-surge-unaccompanied-central-america/ http://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-holding-more-immigrant-children-shelters-ever-949099 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1exA8ik5QI https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border http://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-holding-more-immigrant-children-shelters-ever-949099 https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-07/these-asylum-seekers-are-being-forced-raise-their-kids-immigration-jails

10. The biggest problem is some adults are saying their child was taken unfairly and lost bc they were categorized as unaccompanied.

The govt is saying that in these cases there is no proof (ID, government corroboration, DNA) the child belongs to the adult, that they are trying to get the child back. There have been many verified cases cartel smuggling, sex trafficking and cases where one parent has taken children without the permission of other. The govt says if the adult is insisting it's their child, they can serve a sentence for illegal crossing rather than being deported immediately so the child can be located and reverified. Or they can have the child sent to live with relatives in the US while they're being deported. Or they can go and the child will be sent later. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2018/06/09/migrant-parents-being-deported-without-kids-immigration-border/683483002/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/whats-really-happening-asylum-seeking-families-separated/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1exA8ik5QI

11. Child neglect and abuse in the refugee resettlement process as been going on for a long time

The ACLU civil liberties union says there's been child neglect for years. "verbal, physical and sexual abuse of migrant children; the denial of clean drinking water and adequate food; failure to provide necessary medical care; detention in freezing, unsanitary facilities" etc. https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-obtains-documents-showing-widespread-abuse-child-immigrants-us-custody https://www.aclusandiego.org/civil-rights-civil-liberties/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/opinion/family-detention-immigration.html https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-07/these-asylum-seekers-are-being-forced-raise-their-kids-immigration-jails

12. Missing children have been an ongoing problem for years

Many kids who arrived unaccompanied in the last few years were originally left with relatives or the people that brought them into the country but now no one knows where many are so there is some suspicion some of them were smugglers/traffickers. Parents have also left children at facilities like the Walmart and not come back for them. Or they were allowed to live with relatives and can't be located anymore. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/us/trump-immigrant-children-lost.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/obama-administration-placed-children-with-human-traffickers-report-says/2016/01/28/39465050-c542-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ffca7a68164e https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/us/immigration-refugee-child-missing-hhs-obama-photo-trnd/index.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/05/27/the-u-s-lost-track-of-1500-immigrant-children-last-year-heres-why-people-are-outraged-now/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cfc1c64cb043 https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/former-ice-director-some-migrant-family-separations-are-permanent-n884391

13. Trump signed an executive order to keep kids with parents/adults.

Now that children are going to be kept with the adults who brought them they have to figure out where to put them since adults are being held facilities which are not child friendly. Other countries have created refugee camps with portables. There is talk of housing them at the Ft Bliss military base, in tents like Germany did. And also of getting a UK company to build refugee camps near the border. The group homes through the refugee resettlement office like the converted Walmart cost 1.3 billion dollars so I'm thinking they were hoping to save money using existing holding facilities for adults and just put the kids in with the children awaiting foster care. They didn't plan to reunite kids who are separated now i'm assuming, because they didn't have family friendly facilities built or arranged yet and courts had stopped Obama from keeping kids with adults detention. Now they're going house them army bases. Trump wants to detain adults and the children with them indefinitely so there's enough time to charge people who cross illegally/smuggle and deport them but the line is too long to charge everyone in the 20 day window. This means that most are being released in the country where they stay illegally. https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17484546/executive-order-family-separation-flores-settlement-agreement-immigration https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trump-admin-has-no-plan-for-reuniting-families-it-separated.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/opinion/children-detention-trump-executive-order.html https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/politics/trump-immigration-border-family-separation.html https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/09/texas-mexico-detention-center-serco-obama-administration

14. The government has now reinstated seasonal work visas

The government recently reinstated the H2b seasonal worker visa program which will allow seasonal migrants to come legally again. So far the cap is pretty low. I think the cap is now at 20,000. They'd been going down in numbers if not totally stopped for a number of years. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-makes-15-000-additional-h-2b-visas-available-1527279631 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/20/16003254/trump-h2b-visa-program

15. We have a quarter to half a wall in place currently and contractors are bidding to build Trumps

The southern border of the US is 1200 miles long, across four states, and there's 650 miles of wall already. 300 miles is 15 ft tall. Where there is no wall, there is rivers and land formations and towns. Many areas are missing large chunks. There's only 100 ft in the whole Texas and Texas is one of the two states where most people are crossing. What exists was built over the years by various administrations starting with George Bush the 1st in 2006 and cost $6billion back then. Trump wants to build a new wall which is 25-30 feet tall and concrete. It will cost $8-25 billion. Prototypes for Trumps wall have been built in California and contractors are bidding to build it https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/story/flight-over-entire-us-mexico-border-fence/605855001/ https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/7xepxb/the-us-already-has-a-border-wall-and-its-basically-useless

16. The Supreme Court upheld the third version of the travel ban which includes more than just Muslim nations and has removed Muslim countries which complies with security measures

The first version said it was a ban on seven countries, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, which were all Muslim majority, because they had they had the most terrorists as identified by the past administration. It would have halted all travel for 90 days and refugees for 120 days. Courts said that it was unequal treatment on the basis of religion. This new version removes Iraq now that alqaeda has been diminished as well as Sudan (maybe terrorism dropped?). It also added North Korea and Venezuela which are security threats (certain govt officials only). It still includes the original iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia.” Chad was included on the second draft was removed from the list for increasing security. Now the Supreme Court will determine how permanent it is. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/travel-ban-supreme-court/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/us/trump-travel-ban-timeline/index.html http://fortune.com/2017/09/25/donald-trump-travel-ban-venezuela/ https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/24/17268568/muslim-travel-ban-supreme-court

17. They are deporting people who came illegally and this is normal the US

Trump deported 61, 000 from Jan to Sept 2016 and he has never reached Obama's highest numbers per year. and are more in par with Bush. Obama deported 70,000 in 2015 with several other years at 200, 000. If they use federal benefits they can become ineligible for citizenship or can be deported. Sponsors may be asked to pay for any benefits they use. Though crossing the border between ports has always been illegal and results in the deportation migrants, the law hasn't been upheld for a while (not sure how long). Now they're being deported again. Also not sure how this applies to refugees. I don't think they are being deported. There is a lot of pushback toward Trump even when ICE is deporting sex traffickers and you often hear slogans like 'no person is illegal.' https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/trump-carrying-out-mass-deportation-it-feels-way-some-n838381 https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics/2015 http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/trump-may-try-to-deport-legal-immigrants-who-get-benefits.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/trump-may-try-to-deport-legal-immigrants-who-get-benefits.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/us/immigration-marriage-green-card.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yoFTG8hpEY Tovegrant (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Add away!  Sergeant Davin(talk) 00:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Suppression of content
I am disputing removal of content. In the removal the editor the content "Between October 2017, and May 2018, greater than 450 cases of fraud occurred in the Rio Grande Valley of adults falsely claiming minors as their children."; the source states: "In Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, where most families have been crossing the border in the last five years, the Border Patrol reported 462 cases of fraud among children and family migrants and prosecuted 60 cases this fiscal year, which began in October." The text is a close approximation without out right copying the source's text.

Also the editor removed content relating to the case of Ramon Pedro. Two of the three sources removed were Town Hall, and Daily Wire. One source not used but verifies the event is Washington Times. Is the removing editor claiming that this event did not occur, or falls within the scope of this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We should stick to what reliable sources say. Asserting as fact that there were more than 450 cases of adults falsely claiming children is not in the source. I don't know what I can do for you except insist that you stick to what the source says. The other sources, known for publishing hoaxes, falsehoods conspiracy and anti-immigration hysterics are not RS and do not belong on this or any other Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * RightCowLeftCoast, those three sources are not RS. Don't use them or read them. If the content is true and reliable, it will be found in RS, so use them. That's the proper thing to do. This isn't your personal website or blog. There you can use any sources you want, if you have no ethics and don't care if what you write is true or not. Here things are different. If you can't find that content in RS, then don't trust it and don't try to include it here. You have tried to use unreliable sources before, and that you keep doing it makes me wonder if you lack the competence to edit here, since knowing what are RS and how to vet sources is fundamental to all we do here. We base our content on RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Washington Times, Daily Wire etc. are not reliable sources in this context. Inclusion of material cited to them would be undue. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * IMHO the comments by BullRangifer are uncivil and are a personal attack. Please stop. Reasonable people may disagree but still be civil.
 * I believe there is a disagreement as to whether the sources are RS or Not, and that IMHO these sources meet WP:IRS they have editors and IMHO (and many others) have a reputation of accuracy in what they are reporting. They might be biased, but so are sources such as Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Buzzfeed News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. which are utilized in articles all the time. If inline attribution is required for inclusion of content, than that is fine, but to exclude content outright from multiple sources (which give the example weight) would IMHO be unfortunate.
 * I don't go around claiming sources which don't align with a political view are not reliable sources. Neither should other editors IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Washington Times (owned by the followers of Sung Myung Moon) has no reputation for accuracy at all and should never be used. The Daily Wire is "an American conservative news and opinion website founded in 2015 by political commentator Ben Shapiro;" it can be used for sourced opinion but its reporting is not neutral. Of the ones you listed, MSNBC is frankly partisan and we don't use it as a source for fact. The others - CNN, Huffpost, etc. - are neutral in their reporting, have editorial control, and have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy; that's our definition of a Reliable Source. Of course, Trump insists they are all "fake news" because he doesn't like what they report - but he is not a neutral or reliable source. --MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me inquire how concerns of Trafficking of Children as stated by DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and sourced to NBC News, is not relevant to this section of the article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Her concerns were massively exaggerated and have basically been debunked. See, for example, this article from NBC news, which analyzed the department's own statistics and found that 1) the number of cases where the department suspected family fraud was less than 0.1 percent of border crossings, 2) a deputy chief said that of the cases identified as fraudulent, none involved human trafficking, and 3) he said that all the cases that were prosecuted involved either an adult using false documents to post as a minor, or another family member (uncle, sibling, etc) posing as the child's parent. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Child Trafficking has been documented in various reliable sources as The Guardian and Los Angeles Times. The use of children in the process of trafficking others is documented in this article by Al Jazeera. In addition there has been at least one journal article about the subject. Therefore, there is a basis for the Secretary's concern. It's fine that others disagree with the Secretary's concern, but IMHO just cause some others disagree, that doesn't mean that content relating what the Secretary said should be removed all together.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a concern limited to the current Administration, but one that Senator Chuck Grassley brought up in 2016. So it's a continuing issue. Now it can be argued that since it is a multi-Administration issue, so the content should be included in an article that has the issue within its scope. However, Secretary Nielsen statement for justification of the previous current administration policy, IMHO should be included even if here are others who disagree with the reasoning behind the Secretary's statement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article has just one source - an interview with one anonymous woman. The LA Times article does not document a single case of trafficking; it just describes what border patrol agents think - and how they pressure or accuse parents, even when they present a birth certificate or other documentation. The Al Jazeera article (are we treating that as a reliable source now???) describes how children may act as guides across the border, and says nothing about the children themselves being trafficked. Please learn to actually read what your sources say. The journal articles document, as no-one doubts, that human trafficking exists - but none of them seem to provide much support for the Secretary’s claim that human trafficking has anything to do with minors crossing the border. In contrast, the NBC article I cited is based on actual statistics from the DHS itself - which document not a single case, in the five months covered, of a child being brought across the border as “traffic”. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph not really to the point ?
"Immigration policy and, specifically, illegal immigration to the United States, was a signature issue of U.S. President Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and his proposed reforms and remarks about this issue generated much publicity.[1] Official estimates of the number of illegal immigrants in the United States range from 11 and 12 million. Trump has repeatedly characterized such immigrants as criminals, although multiple studies have found they have lower crime and incarceration rates than native-born Americans."

For a president that has installed bans on travel from a number of countries, and implemented separation (and detention? - not sure on that point..) of minors at the border to Mexiko, this is kind of a meek first paragraph to an article named "immigration policy of Donald Trump"... Or did I miss something, and this is more about his campaign views/ statements (there was a section talking about that above, and I thought there was agreement to push campaign statement stuff elsewhere ..?).

Anyhow, if this is about Trump administration immigration policy, am I correct to think the lead section is in need of some serious reworking ? Regards, Sean Heron (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a bit surprised this didn't chime (either way) with anyone... I think the state of the lead para is even worse than it was half a year ago :/. If I find the time, I'll open a discussion below on what, or what shouldn't be in the lead paragraph. Sean Heron (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to strongly second this idea. We have a number of significant policy changes that have been carried out by the Trump administration that belong in the lead, notably…
 * The travel ban
 * Ending Temporary Protected Status for a number of countries
 * Increasing immigration enforcement operations at the southwest border and in the US Interior
 * Greatly expanding the detention facilities for Unaccompanied Alien Children
 * Cutting the annual cap on refugee admissions in half and shifting the composition of refugees admission away from Muslim majority nations.
 * It's not hard to summarize at least some of these moves in the opening paragraph. The second and third sentences describing the scale of illegal immigrant population and Trump's remarks no longer should appear before Trump's actual policy actions (which should be paragraph 1), and next his unsuccessful policy proposals (DACA appeal, new immigration law proposal, building a wall; in paragraph 2) and then finally detailing his highly notable rhetoric on the issue (paragraph 3). Including all three in a brief opening paragraph before these might work too.--Carwil (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Immigration policy of Donald Trump
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 Immigration policy of Donald Trump'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 "auto":<ul> <li>From Political positions of Donald Trump: </li> <li>From Trump administration family separation policy: </li> <li>From Trump wall: </li> </ul>

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 ⚡ 19:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

POV disagreements tag
I can't find any evidence of an ongoing discussion re POV problems. I think the tag should be removed. Please discuss or remove if you agree. Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It may not be intentional, but at least the lead paragraph - by focusing on the Trump Campaigns policy messaging rather than the policy of the Trump administration - does not represent a neutral point of view. See also my comment above on this needing to be fixed. I'm considering re-adding a "Neutrality disputed" tag till that is addressed. Sean Heron (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So let's split it into Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration and Immigration policy of the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign. It's getting too long anyway.--Carwil (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, enough of this. It's been four months now and the editor that added this tag has done nothing.  Granted, there is no question that the lead could use improvement, like so many of our articles, but to call it biased is not appropriate.  The lead begins with his pre-presidency views and works forward.  While it can be argued that this is not a good first paragraph, it is not a POV problem.  I'm removing the tag.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Undocumented vs illegal
Conflict about this term seems to be a constant issue on this page. The original versions of this page all use 'illegal' which is factual and non-partisan. 'Undocumented' is a party-political term and therefore has no place on Wikipedia except in reference to quotations.

This has been discussed elsewhere on the talk page as well, but this fresh section should provide an easy opportunity for a new discussion. Anyone is welcome to discuss here.

Vaurnheart (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree ✅ The term 'undocumented' has not been generally used as a term for foreign nationals who enter the United States illegally until recently, when its use became a political alternative to 'illegal'. Such persons have committed the crime of illegal entry, so the terms 'illegal alien' or 'illegal immigrant' should be preferred on grounds of neutrality and historical use, both in the media and in earlier versions of this page.


 * JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no consensus on the "illegal immigrant"/"undocumented" terms on Wikipedia. Both can generate problems with NPOV. The style guides of the Associated Press, Washington Post, and New York Times call for avoiding the terms "illegal immigrants" and "illegal alien", and the AP calls for avoiding "undocumented" as well, except in quotations. For strong arguments about violating WP:LABEL and NPOV, and counterarguments, see here.--Carwil (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The article you reference indicates "There is a rough consensus to oppose a blanket ban on using the term "illegal alien" outside direct quotations."


 * Two excellent reasons given to use "illegal alien" instead of "undocumented alien/immigrant" are that: (a) "illegal alien" is accurate legal terminology (used currently by the Supreme Court), and (b) it is not inherently more derogatory than available alternatives. Given that the term "undocumented" is a party-political term and ignores the legal fact that these persons have broken the law, it seems reasonable to use "illegal alien" rather than "undocumented alien", since the latter is not neutral, while the former is about as neutral as we can get.


 * I will modify one thing which I previously stated. We should not use the phrase "illegal immigrant" because it appears to justify to a slight degree that such people have a natural right to immigrate, despite the illegal nature of their presence in the U.S. So "illegal alien" is really the only appropriate term, since it is the appropriate legal term and isn't unnecessarily political (being merely a description of the nature of the issue). -- JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I would have thought the phrase "illegal immigrant" was the most neutral and commonplace, since traditionally the term "immigrant" hasn't necessarily implied legitimacy, and the "illegal" descriptor puts it into clear context regardless. For example, in my country (UK), the Viking settlers have always been described as immigrants by historians (even in Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song), irrespective of whether their passports were in date... Vaurnheart (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that "illegal imigrant" contains a more NPOV than "undocumented" just due to the sheer use in history, but if it is that big of a deal then just say illegal/undocumented immigrants. Poof, problem solved.<b style="color: #FF0000;"> Sergeant Davin</b>(talk) 01:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To <b style="color: #FF0000;"> Sergeant Davin</b> - Two things about your comment above: 1) There are many instances when it is legal (not illegal) for immigrants to enter the United States with no documents (example: when seeking asylum). 2) There are some people, white, black, brown, & yellow, who enter the United States illegally & that is refereed to as "illegal immigration" (not illegal immigrant - which is a derogatory slur). I hope you understand the huge difference between "illegal immigration" versus calling a human-being an "illegal immigrant" (humans are not "illegal"). Therefore, your phrase "illegal/undocumented immigrant" is just as derogatory and as legally wrong as the slur "illegal immigrant." BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To User:BetsyRMadison the term "illegal immigrant", and the related term "illegal migrant", are the natural demonym renditions of the term "illegal immigration", used by law firms, e.g: here.  The "illegal" descriptor is not referring to the individual's status as a human being, but very specifically to their immigrant status, since there is a distinction between being a legal migrant and an illegal migrant - unlike pot smokers, whose habit is criminalised in the US anyway so "illegal" is redundant. "Illegal immigrant" is an established neutral legal term, but if you are not convinced, what would be your opinion on the term "criminal immigrant" instead? It would be the natural alternative if it is wrong to use the descriptor "illegal" on any person.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaurnheart (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Disagree with using "illegal immigrant" because it is a bigoted, racist, derogatory slur.
 * (comment explaining why it is derogatory) Regarding this WP article, we know Donald Trump uses the words "illegal immigrant" as a racist, bigoted slur because that's the slur Trump uses to describe immigrants who are legally (not illegally) entering America to seek asylum.
 * 1) It is legal (not illegal) to enter America with no documents (undocumented) in certain instances, for example: it is legal (not illegal) for immigrants to enter US with no documents when seeking asylum.
 * 2) "illegal immigration" is an action defined by law - human beings are not "illegal" - a human's actions may be illegal, but the human is not "illegal." Do we call people who illegally smoking pot "illegal pot smoker?" No, because that'd be stupid, just as stupid as calling someone an "illegal immigrant."
 * 3) Entering the USA illegally is a civil (not criminal) violation  -- which makes calling a human an "illegal immigrant" even more bigoted and absurd. Do we call people involved in other civil violations, like property disputes an "illegal neighbors?" No, that'd be stupid.
 * 4) Deporting a person who is not in USA legally is a civil (not criminal) proceeding - which again makes calling a human an "illegal immigrant" even more bigoted and absurd.
 * 5) Just like the "n-word" the phrase "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" is used to disparage and spread hatred and fear against a group of people. It does not make any of those words any less derogatory, bigoted, or racist, just because an RS may use, or have used, those words in the past.
 * And, it does not make any of those words any less derogatory, bigoted, or racist, just because those words have been used in US law.
 * It seems that some WP editors may be confusing an action "illegal immigration" with the derogatory slur "illegal immigrant." BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with 'undocumented' is that the word implies that all that is lacking is for documentation to be provided. This is inaccurate as the issue is about requiring permission to be in the USA - and documentation will then follow. There is also the confusion that some states do issue documentation to non-citizens without right to be in the USA (such as driving licences), so to describe them as 'undocumented' is also incorrect. The most neutral term is illegal immigrant' as it describes an immigrant who is in the USA but without legal permission - hence 'illegal'. Birtig (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A rather weak version of a right-wing talking point. Entirely off-base and unconvincing, and I have never seen this line of thinking in any RS or the opinion of a notable commentator on immigration or legal issues. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not relying on arguments I have read elsewhere and instead just on my understanding of the meaning of the words 'illegal', 'immigrant' and 'undocumented'. Of course, I live in the UK rather than the USA and perhaps the meaning of 'illegal immigrant' is different in the USA...though I doubt it. Birtig (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * An update after looking into this further: "The Justice Department has instructed US attorneys offices not to use the term "undocumented" immigrants and instead refer to someone illegally in the US as "an illegal alien," according to a copy of an agency-wide email obtained by CNN. According to the email, the Justice Department uses terms in the US Code to describe an individual who is illegally in the US, and thus refers to them as "an illegal alien." "The word 'undocumented' is not based in US code and should not be used to describe someone's illegal presence in the country," the email states.. Perhaps if editors don't like the term 'illegal immigrant' we may have to consider the obvious alternative - the legal term 'illegal alien'. Personally I think illegal immigrant is better. Birtig (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)