Talk:Immigration reform in the United States

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): Edit&augur9. Peer reviewers: Edit&augur9.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:52, 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. Student editor(s): Jakesterlewis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Hannahfitsum.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cocobutter295.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
"Proponents of greater immigration enforcement argue that illegal immigrants cost taxpayers an estimated $338.3 billions dollars and jeopardize the safety of our law enforcement officials and citizens, especially along the Mexican border." This is not true. Is there a legitimate source for this? The reference given is a link to a blog post about a chain mail letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.26.121 (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2011 (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): Blackhawk archer, Josep345. Peer reviewers: Kmarquez96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"usually seeking work."
I would say this contention is highly debatable.Zuzim 21:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I would say that would be true. Most (denotes usually) immigrants go here for a better life. If it said all immigrants are seeking work that would be a different story. Aceofspades 13:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

...because as we all know, it is FAR more likely to find an immigrant begging for money on the side of the road than say... harvesting crops or building a house or preparing or serving food. It is also well known that in general, immigrants have absolutely no intentions of bettering themselves or their families, as is evidenced by the complete lack of immigrant owned business or the ridiculously low rate of enrollment of immigrants in higher education institutions all across the country… Get real! the only other people who agree with your thinking are the ones who have your same insecurities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.199.125.10 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is completely unbalanced and reads like an 'I HATE GEORGE BUSH' private webpage. Has anyone even read this page to see what it reads like? 71.158.216.46 (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Public Immigration Reform Ideas from Utah
Congressman Chaffetz there have been several of us here at a local business in Sandy Utah that are concerned with the recent events that are taking place in Arizona regarding immigration. While we fully support the laws of the land and believe that everyone should follow them if they want to live in this great country, we also feel that going about immigration in the way that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is proposing does not protect the great values of this nation, and respect the rights of individuals and families as members of the human race.

Even though the system is very difficult and hard to get through, everyone should be abiding by it and following the rules that have been set in place. It seems like one problem is that we do not make it appear that the only way you can be successful in this country is to be here legally.,and that you can still be just fine by being here illegally.

We would like to propose some ideas for you to consider and possibly use in a proposal to the United States Government.

From our point of view it seems that one of our biggest problems is that it is too inviting to work in this country without having proper documentation. It does not seem to be enforced with all registered and licensed business that they should only hire legal citizens/immigrants. We think that this would be the best way to enforce the immigration laws and make it clear that we do want them in this country and we appreciate their contribution, but we do not want them here illegally. We would propose that several random times per year each registered/licensed business would be required to provide legal documentation for all of their employees. If the business was found to employ an illegal immigrant the company, as well as the individual, would receive a fine, and the individual would also be exported from this country back to their own country. We would expect immigration to handle cases like this humanely and give the person respect as well as provide the necessary information to this individual that would show them how to become legal in the USA. If the individual was illegal but his children that were born in this country we would provide the option for the children to stay in this country or leave with the individual. In all cases where a family is involved the entire family would leave or by their choice be split up.

In order get this program running it would need to be a standard for the entire country. Because of the integration that we have in our economic structure with illegal immigrants we do not think it would be wise to attempt to export as many illegal immigrants as you could find. A better solution we feel would be to invite, during a short period of time, those who are in this country illegally to come forward and be honest with the immigration department. When they come forward they give a full account of when they got here and what they have done and why they want to be in the country. Immigration could then offer them a green card/work visa with the agreement that they will pay a determined amount to immigration to keep their legal status. Immigration could offer people a payment plan for 1 year to pay the balance in full. The amounts and the rules could fit into the current immigration laws or be reformed. If they fail to either pay the balance in full after 3 months, or agree to a payment plan then they will be deported and will need to start the legal process over again. We propose that we provide this ‘amnesty’ during a 2 week time-period at the most where individuals would need to have submitted their statement during this time frame. Anyone after this time frame would be denied and would need to go through the full immigration process. In order to not get a rush of people thinking that this would be an express ticket into the country we would require that when they submit their statement they also need to have some proof that they have been here in the country for 2 to 3 months. We feel that doing this would allow us to keep people that are probably integrated into our economy and making great contributions, and at the same time help to eventually weed out individuals who are not contributing. Also, requiring them to make the same or similar financial obligations that others have made who have already gone through the immigration process seems to be a way to make sure they feel the same thing that others felt. If an individual has not paid the agreed balance in full after 1 year, if they were on a payment plan, they would be deported.

After the initial 2 week period the enforcement would start with businesses. I think the thing that would make this successful would be consistency. It would not remove the issues immediately, but if it is kept up and the United States as a whole is consistent we believe it would improve and we would be helping people that want to be part of this country and also protect the ideals of the USA. If business’s do that have the proper documentation they would be fined 10% of their yearly income. The business could be fined each visit if they don’t have proper documentation. At each visit the business would need to provide a list of employees from the past 6 months and have the documentation needed to show they are legally in the USA.

We feel that working through businesses would be the best way to correct the issues because you are not picking and choosing anyone. All businesses are under that umbrella.

Another thing to consider would be to create temporary work visa’s like they do in Canada to enable people to come in and work for determined amounts of time.

We realize that there are many other things that are affected and unlimited scenarios, but we think there are some good ideas and could be a springboard to develop a better way to handle these types of issues.

Some ideas that might help facilitate this:


 * Create a website where people can submit their full account online during the 2 week period. Immigration officials would then contact them to set up an appointment.


 * Offer some support to help improve economic conditions in other countries. Better economic conditions in our neighboring countries seems like it would benefit all of us.


 * Look Into Guest Visa’s that would allow someone to work here in the country and a short amount of time. (coming to pick fruit for a month during harvest time)

Tjfinlinson (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Arizona SB 1070
If at all possible, FOX News should be avoided as a source. The claims that are cited to Fox are probably reported elsewhere, as well. siafu (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Reasons Immigration Reform Should Be Pursued
Immigration reform is a touchy subject in American politics however there are many reasons why instituting comprehensive, fair and balanced reform is necessary. First immigration reform will help to stabilize the economy by creating jobs and increasing tax revenues. Second it will decrease crime, including identity theft, and inhibit the ability of international criminal organizations which in turn will reduce the amount of tax dollars spent to imprison criminals from other countries. Third it will provide a fair chance at the American dream for the children of undocumented immigrants by providing a path to citizenship. Fourth it will increase national security by securing our borders and giving border patrol agents the resources they need. Finally immigration reform will assist immigrants to assimilate into society instead of being segregated from it. In order to ensure the passage of immigration reform legislation Americans must educate themselves on the facts about immigration and reach across party lines to come to a fair and balanced agreement. -Shawn Nibbe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.237.240 (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Immigration reform is a touchy subject in American politics however there are many reasons why instituting comprehensive, fair and balanced reform is necessary. First immigration reform will help to stabilize the economy by creating jobs and increasing tax revenues. Second it will decrease crime, including identity theft, and inhibit the ability of international criminal organizations which in turn will reduce the amount of tax dollars spent to imprison criminals from other countries. Third it will provide a fair chance at the American dream for the children of undocumented immigrants by providing a path to citizenship. Fourth it will increase national security by securing our borders and giving border patrol agents the resources they need. Finally immigration reform will assist immigrants to assimilate into society instead of being segregated from it. In order to ensure the passage of immigration reform legislation Americans must educate themselves on the facts about immigration and reach across party lines to come to a fair and balanced agreement. Shawn Nibbe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.237.240 (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Immigration reform in the United States
According to Wikipedia five pillars, articles should be written in a neutral point of view. In the first paragraph, the second sentence is violating Wikipedia's guidelines by giving their racist opinion.Also, the information is irrelevant on immigration reform. Therefore, I would like to delete this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenijur (talk • contribs) 22:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Article is incomplete, as it makes virtually no reference to any immigration reform activities prior to 1986, and only a few references to any immigration reform activities prior to early 2000s. The lack of substantive historical context makes the article misleading, since it seems like this topic lacks a lengthy history. For example, the 1965 immigration act had a huge impact, and the 1986 amnesty was also particularly important. Despite that, there are only two or three sentences on these topics in total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.246.92.231 (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013
I would like to add more information in this section because it's to brief. However, some of the information I would like to mentioned is in the first paragraph. I will like to rearrange the paragraphs to keep the dates in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenijur (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Something to add
With a brief search I 'found'

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-immigration-reform-pass-in-2014/

and in particular

The bill, for all its bipartisan bonhomie, was dead on arrival in the House of Representatives, where many in the Republican majority oppose either the idea of passing a massive, comprehensive piece of legislation in the style of Obamacare or rewarding immigrants who had crossed the border illegally or overstayed visas with anything that might be perceived by their base as amnesty.

i.e. I have now have some idea about the push back from the House of Representatives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.171.32 (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Amnesty - We already have "comprehensive" immigration laws. The law says illegal immigration is .. ah illegal. As far as I can gather the new "comprehensive" law says that illegal immigration is .. ah legal. We've been through this before ( seems like every 20 years or so). The real question is are we going to go through this in 2040+. 24.128.186.53 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Separating Families
I would like to add a section on the separation of families and how immigration reform will help the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenijur (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal Proceedings
I would like to add a section on how the ICE deportation functions for example, who gets deported and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenijur (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd second this addition and also consider adding information as to how many people were deported under various Presidents' administrations. Jerrysong1324 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Education
I would like to add a section about immigrants and their education. The way their education helps the economy financially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenijur (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issue(s)
I have made revisions in order to address issues associated with the NPOV tag of July 2014. There is no indication on this talk page of what prompted that tag being placed, but I noticed remarks from July 2014 on the history page concerning the "broken families" and "US economy" sub-sections, and have made corrections to those sections. I also found a few other passages elsewhere where there were disputed points, where supporting sources seemed thin, or where the text could be seen as slanted towards either a pro-immigration or anti-immigration viewpoint. I have rewritten such passages, added documentary links and footnotes, and moved a few sentences around in order to improve overall clarity. I believe that these revisions fully deal with the NPOV issue now, but will wait a few days before removing the notice. If someone spots something related to the neutrality of the immigration reform page which I missed, please describe it here. I will check back here before taking the NPOV tag off of the page. Drewkeeling (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am British, and have no knowledge of immigration policy in the US. I do know that there has been extensive discussion of immigration policy in the UK this year, with most of the pressure for change coming from people who want it to be less liberal. Yet the United Kingdom section of the article starts with two paragraphs about pressure to make immigation policy more liberal, followed by one shorter paragraph about pressure to make it more restrictive.
 * Also – irrelevant to the POV issue – I disagree with the final sentence of the section. I believe that UKIP politicians are sincere in their anti-immigration stance, they are not just "harnessing support". The source cited in the article for that sentence makes no mention of UKIP. Maproom (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to make it clear, just to avoid any misunderstanding, that I disagree strongly with UKIP and its policies. Maproom (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Maproom, for your helpful observations here. I have fixed the incorrect link for the Economist article which mentions the UKIP ("harnessing" "anti-immigration sentiment" -and by implication the "frustrations" discussed by Cameron- not "harnessing support" by the way), and consolidated the two make-immigration-policy-more-liberal paragraphs (in the UK section) into one (without cutting substance). My own knowledge of immigration policy is much stronger for the USA than for Britain. It is still the case that there is more in the UK section on now less prominent efforts at liberalization than on efforts at restriction, but that probably reflects at least in part the fact that that liberalization text is based on statements and policy proposals that are now over five years old. It seems to me that text being dated or even obsolete is not grounds for designating the page as a whole as having neutrality issues, especially since the section in question (UK) is a quite small fraction of the total page. Thanks for watching this, though, and for posting useful comments and suggestions. Drewkeeling (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

One Word correction to transcript of Obamas Nov 20, 2014 speech
I corrected the transcript of this speech in one word: "wages" now correctly reads "workers" in "Employers who pay their workers good wages ...". This speech snipped cites Drew Keeling's Business of Migration blog where the same typographical error appears; Keeling in turn cites the Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-obamas-immigration-speech/2014/11/20/14ba8042-7117-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html) containing the speech. The Post also transcribed this one word incorrectly. However the Post article imbeds a video of the speech itself, in which it is very clear the word the President speaks is workers. Bookerj (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Good eye, Bookerj! Thanks --Drewkeeling (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Plan to remove template message re See Also
I hereby propose to remove the "template message" that the " 'see also' section may contain an excessive number of suggestions." The message was added in October 2016 without comment on this talk page. I believe I have addressed the issue now by reducing the number of links from 13 to 9, and putting them in what seems to me a more logical order. The links deleted and reasons for deleting are: English-only movement" (concerns education policy, not immigration policy), "Immigration and crime" (concerns immigrants and crime issues, more than immigration policy), "National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities" (that Wikipedia page is very short and essentially provides little useful information other than the name of the organization and that it -among other activities- is also occupied with immigration reform matters), "March for America, March 21, 2010, protest in Washington, DC" (while relevant to immigration reform, this protest demonstration is mentioned nowhere in this Wikipedia article and there appears to be no particular reason for highlighting just that one demonstration out of many similar ones in recent years). Unless there are comments or concerns to the contrary within the next few days, I will go ahead then and remove the existing template message. Drewkeeling (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 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: page moved. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Immigration reform → Immigration reform in the United States – This article has a generic title, but is almost entirely about US immigration politics, with the exception of a short section at the end about the UK (that could easily be moved elsewhere). Renaming it would be in keeping with Wikipedia's title policies, in more accurately describing the contents of the page, and what readers should expect to find here. Robofish (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — usernamekiran (talk)  19:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support are you willing to fork out the UK paragraph into a separate stub with correct categories? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, if other people think this move is a good idea. Robofish (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's see how the seven days runs through, you'd also have to have a micro-stub at Immigration reform retaining the opening dic def paragraph and in effect acting as a dab page. But that's fine. Can see someone adding Immigration reform in Australia as well. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Would it not make more sense to split the U.S. content to a new article and globalise this article? AusLondonder (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Most efficient and comprehensive, it seems to me, would be to: (a) Create a new article, called something like "immigration reform worldwide," linking it to "immigration policy." // (b) Include in that new article an expanded opening generic definition (with more information than in the current immigration reform article) and a few general points about how immigration policy has evolved and been "reformed" globally in recent decades, move over to this new article the existing UK section, add in new sections on Australia and elsewhere, and install a very brief summary of the USA along with a link to the existing article. // (c) Rename the existing article as proposed above by Robofish.Drewkeeling (talk) 08:05, 6 September 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.

Peer Review
A. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Each fact is referenced with an article: However, Source #24 is a Fox News article. This source is most likely right-leaning, reducing the impartiality of this article. B. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Some of the organization in the article could use some work. For example, the subsection titled "High Cost" is vague and the content appears out of place. I would suggest re-titling the subsection to "Increasing costs of Immigration Reform", and putting it under "Effects on the US economy". C. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Overall, the article appears neutral, with sources on on both pro-immigration and immigration restrictionist sources. D. Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? As was mentioned before, the Fox News source seems particular favorable towards anti-immigration policies. This 'fact' could be motivated by opinion, I would appreciate the source to be a link of a study that looked at the costs rather than a news outlet. This potential bias is not noted. On the other hand, source 23 is from the Center for Immigration Studies, a source which states it is pro-immigrant at the header of its site. This bias is not noted, and is used to back up the title 'Broken Families'. This section seems heavily pro-immigrant, with a title that is aiming to engender empathy rather than state facts. E. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Overall, this article seems to maintain viewpoints on both sides. Impartiality is difficult to achieve in such a politicized matter, yet the article seems to offer arguments that both defend and attack immigration, sometimes lacking an in-between. F. Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? All the citations appear to be functional. No plagiarism or close paraphrasing is apparent. G. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? The article is certainly lacking in recent developments in the immigration debate. Namely, Trump is only mentioned in one subsection of the article. The article requires an update as to recent developments.

99.10.123.78 (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Immigration reform in the United States. 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/20090620005627/http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/index_campaign.php to http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/index_campaign.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020135021/http://www.immigrationamerica.org/component/content/article/11-homepage-articles/21-comprehensive-immigration-reform to http://www.immigrationamerica.org/component/content/article/11-homepage-articles/21-comprehensive-immigration-reform
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618225133/http://apps.americanbar.org/abanet/media/release/news_release.cfm?releaseid=870 to http://apps.americanbar.org/abanet/media/release/news_release.cfm?releaseid=870
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120619002804/http://www.acus.gov/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/01/ACUS-Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Draft-Report-1_12_12.pdf to http://www.acus.gov/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/01/ACUS-Immigration-Removal-Adjudication-Draft-Report-1_12_12.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313043114/http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/misplaced_priorities_march_2014.pdf to http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/misplaced_priorities_march_2014.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/17/5349477/s744-offers-historic-and-bipartisan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)