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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup needed[edit]

Please someone help clean up this article. I feel it's a very important subject and should be up to Wikipedia's standard. Sysrpl 12:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sysrpl. I've made some changes -- but there's much more to be done.
-Scottwiki 21:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were a couple of instances of words that were not NPOV that I removed, but I think this article needs to be shortened definitely. Panfakes 16:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illegals or Undocumented Immigrants???[edit]

It is my understanding that the term "illegal" applies to a crime being commited. Using this term implies that the people in question are doing something criminal. This term is both demoralizing and dehumanizing and carries a racist conotation. Would there be a huge edit war if the word 'illegal' was replaced with 'undocumented' where appropriate? WikiTony 06:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word racism implies a blanket attack or prejudgement against a specifc ethnic group. I challenge you to tell us specifically what the racial content of the word "illegal" might be. The word is being used to describe people who enter the United States without appropriate visas or entry permits and take up residency/employment without applying for it through the legal process. I don't know what "undocumented" means - illegal aliens break multiple laws to live and work in the USA, and it is precisely the contravention of US law that the word "illegal" encapsulates (and "undocumented" does not). I don't think this has anything to do with NPOV; I will willingly begin using "undocumented" if anyone can explain what meaning this word covers that "illegal" does not. 171.66.152.246 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Illegal' is the technically proper word. As WikiTony points out, it applies to a crime being commited. When a person enters the country "undocumented" they are already breaking the law (i.e. illegal). Some say that HR 4437 would "criminalize undocumented workers". This is not correct because they are already criminals. It would "felonize" them, meaning that, instead of merely breaking state or civil codes, they would be breaking federal codes as well. Either way, they are breaking laws and their actions are (and always have been) criminal and illegal. The term "undocumented worker" was a politically motivated phrase invented to try and avoid the negative connotation of "illegal alien", but negative or not, "illegal" is the proper term. Nothing about it has anything to do with race. --Daniel 00:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase: "Illegals" should describe people who have been tried and found guilty in a court of law for commiting a stated crime. As far as i know there is no specific law that says "Crossing the border without documentation is illegal." In my opinion, the only crime being commited is tax evasion. If you think i am wrong please show me the exact law that says crossing the border in the non-traditional way is illegal. The term "illegal alien" is a politically movitated phrase intended to try to avoid the humane connotation of "undocumented." It is wrong on many levels (the least of which gramatically) to call someone an "illegal" without properly giving that person a fair trial. Wether we realize it or not, the american public is being conditioned to believe that our country's problems stem from immigration. Perhaps we should take a closer look at the millions of jobs being outsourced to places like china, indonesia, and surprise! even mexico in order to keep production costs down and profit margins wide. Perhaps some people in DC are scared that in 10 years there will be more hispanics than white people. Perhaps english will no longer be the prevalent language. Look at this historically: Every ethnic group that has ever come to america has been vilified and stereotyped. This is merely a new form of racisim- and yes- it is racism because the target of this bill deals with only one country and one people. There is no talk of a fence along the canadian border is there? WikiTony 23:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we are being technical about it, why do you brand them "undocumented" without being on trial first? If you are here "Undocumented," you are here illegally. Unless you want to argue to call them "Immigrants suspected of entering the country undocumented," you have nothing going on for you in that argument. As for your argument about it being racist because the border that is primarily targetted is the one with Mexico, is flawed. Fact is that statistically speaking most Illegal Immigrants cross the border (illegally) through our southern border. Although the northern border is not being targetted, people who enter illegally through it will be prosecuted the same way as the ones that enter illegally through the southern border. Oh, and here is a link to the law against undocumented entry. Although you bring a valid point into the argument about outsourcing, you don't see the bigger picture. The way the economy is being driven is to the point where soon legals will have to take up jobs that they previously didn't do because it'll be the only source of income available (due to the outsourcing you speak of). If you factor the fact that hispanics are reproducing (by birth, illegal entry, and legal entry) faster than any other race, this country cannot afford to have more illegals come in when the projected economy will force legals to do the job of illegals. Although I agree that the people who create the problem are the companies by hiring them and the United States by sponsoring oppressive environment in other countries, it is easier to target immigrants than to target companies; though under this bill even employers will be held to more severe punishment. This bill is in no way racist since I'm sure the same thing would be done if the illegals were black/white/red/purple/green.
Yes, WikiTony, entering the country without documentation IS a violation of many laws - it is illegal. Crossing the border without permission is a misdemeanor, and on second or more offenses it becomes a felony - that is the law as it has been for a long time. In addition, it is illegal for a business to hire illegal aliens and they can be punished. Technically, they might be "alleged illegal aliens" until a trial, but as said above, you're calling them 'undocumented' without them having a trial too. Besides, if they are found on this side of the border and don't have documentation, they are in violation city and state laws by that mere fact alone.
And what are you thinking? Do you think the government is funding a border patrol just to harass people who aren't violating any laws because they're racist???? You think entire organizations could be founded upon that if there weren't specific laws being violated? The entire REASON for this entire debate is because these people are criminal invaders breaking the law by entering in what you lightly term "the untraditional way". No one of any significance has a problem with people becoming citizens the legal way, regardless of their race. People need to know this: being an illegal alien is... illegal (who woulda thunk it).--Daniel 18:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that this bill is criminal in itself. It should NOT be illegal to help these people who just want to start a new life. I am sure that some of these people would do whatever it takes to become a legal citizen, no matter what it takes. Or how long. Later!!! Chili14 00:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Modified 24.126.188.190's revision. They changed the wording "illegal alien" to the euphemistic "undocumented person". I've searched the bill's text, and the preferred way of referring to the people in question is "undocumented alien", I've changed the phrases in question to match the wording of the bill to maintain NPOV. Katrianya 18:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source needed for Provisions[edit]

The Provisions section lacks an obvious source. It might be an accurate summary of the bill, or might not. A list of provisions linked to one or more sources would give me more confidence in the article. -Scottwiki 02:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am specifically curious about the claim "All children born in America from illegal immigrants will become wards of the state". I went spelunking through the actual text of the bill (4 versions) and could not find anything that even leads to that conclusion. Is there a clause I am missing? -Nstohlma 23:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I live on the border, and my guess is that this means the child will be taken into foster care and the parents sent back to whatever country they originally came from. This would prevent illegals who have children in the US from remaining in the US on account of their children. This has been discussed, but since lawyers speak, read, and write their own language I could not tell you where to look for it. Its possible that such a provision is an "in between the lines" thing that is not stated but rather understood. TomStar81 04:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Library of congress seems to have a nice summary[1] of the bill here and does not seem to mention anything about children of illegal immigrants becoming wards of the state. Most of the items mentioned seem to be correct, but still cannot find anything about the children. Also added the link to the external links section, not realizing that the first linked page contained the link to the summary. And I wrote the wrong number in the edit summary. Psycho Medic 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 I attended a talk a professor from the University of Michigan law school gave on the consequences of the bill, and added a few of 
 the provisions based on that.  He mentioned the wards of the state thing (which was not added by me).  not sure how it should be 
 cited, but it seems that some of the effects of the legislation have more to do with how it can be interpreted/applied, and aren't 
 explicit in the bill itself.

Link on green card lottery should be removed[edit]

The link regarding the green card lottery which I removed was restored by 87.252.230.55. The linked page does not address H.R. 4437 directly, and is thus suboptimal for this topic. Moreover, the link is already included in Green Card Lottery. Accordingly, I will once again remove it from this article. -Scottwiki 05:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The green card lottery link is back. I should be focusing, I suppose, more on the substance of the article. And when I have time, I will -- if no one beats me to it. But for now, I can recommend that other Wikipedians remove this link. I won't remove it again, since I've already done so twice, and wouldn't want to be accused of an edit war. -Scottwiki 10:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it again. In addition to the factors mentioned previously, there's no indication (in English, anyway) of the organization promoting this page. (Perhaps the site sponsoring this page should be in a Belarusian or Russian version of Wikipedia.) The page is also outdated. -17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The goal of this link is to show that there is a big community outside of United States opposing HR 4437 (in particular, one of its amendments). We can not march all together, since we reside in different countries, but there 10 millions of us according to the latest statistics from US State Department. Article was written in February, 2006 and the most relevant information was used. We (green card lottery participants) have no lobby neither in the Senate, nor in the House of Represenatives, and our only way is to inform American society by ourselves why United States should save the green card lottery in its current condition. I believe that since there are links representing different opinions of American communities, it can be interesting and cognitive to get an exterior view. Remember, there are 10 millions of us. /April 7th.

Opposition violates NPOV[edit]

I believe that the Opposition section, as restored by Sysrpl[2], violates NPOV. There are arguments in favor and against H.R. 4437; there are supporters and opponents. I think that it is appropriate to mention the size of the demonstrations against the bill. However, to mention a litany of arguments against the bill, and none for the bill, is not neutral. (Also, the arguments, like the provisions, aren't supported by a source.) -Scottwiki 05:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section restored was in the opposition column. That the article is/was unbalanced does not mean it violates the NPOV rule and the detractor's points should be removed, rather someone should add a counter point summary in support of the legislation. Do you feel up to the task? Sysrpl 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been tinkering with the article, and adding links to this article on other relevant articles, but haven't had the time necessary to research the topic in order to make significant improvements. There must be someone out there who does! Perhaps you'll be the one.-Scottwiki 05:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed throughout[edit]

Sources, sources, where are the sources? Anyone can *claim* anything he or she believes about this bill and the controversy surrounding it. But on Wikipedia, the policy is to support statements with reliable sources. -Scottwiki 07:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to go through the House majority summary and the bill report and searched for keywords to denote the actual sections where language appears. It's a slow process and I would appreciate any help. Calwatch 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Calwatch. I don't know when I'll have time to help. (It's been easier for me to attract attention to the page and its problems than to get into the substance of the issues. I can tinker with the topic in my spare time, but did not feel comfortable analyzing the bill in those spaces of time.) But if no one comes to your assistance, I'll be glad to ... eventually!. (Also, it's possible that the Senate will pass a bill soon, which will need to be compared and contrasted to the House version. So I hope that more people will chip in to carry the workload.) -Scottwiki 20:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests[edit]

I copyedited the information in the "Protests" section of "H.R. 4437" and moved it to the companion article "2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests". Information should only be in one place. Please review and make any changes deemed appropriate. Accurizer 01:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, a brief summary should be provided in this article as well, which I have taken the liberty to add. Calwatch 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illeagal immigrants have no rights,they are NOT citizens. Dudtz 5/17/06 6:40 PM EST

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

H.R. 4437, United States immigration debate, and 2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests[edit]

What connection should this article have to United States immigration debate? Should one be merged into the other? Should both, plus 2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests, be combined into one large article? My feeling is that all text concerning legislation should be combined, especially if and when one of the bills is enacted. The debate and protests should also be merged into one article, since the protests lack much meaning without the substance behind them. An all-encompassing article would be reasonable, since the bills, the debate, and the protests are all closely linked. Why make the reader jump from one article to two others, when a single article can tell the whole story? -Scottwiki 01:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the legislation passes, then this article and the "debate" article should be merged, as the debate is about the bill. If it doens't pass then it should all be merged with the protests, which will be more significant than a failed bill. -Will Beback 21:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be merged. Even though related, the legislation and the protests should be separate (or if anything, the protest should be a subsection of the bill)--Jimktrains 17:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they should give papers

This article doesn't give an accurate summary of the bill[edit]

The bill makes undocumented immigrants in this country felons as well.

Actual text re: "Prohibit Aid"[edit]

ALIEN SMUGGLING AND RELATED OFFENSES

Section274.(a)(1) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES- Whoever-- (C) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States, or to attempt to reside in or remain in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such person is an alien who lacks lawful authority to reside in or remain in the United States;

This is the actual text. The existing law is very similar, available at 8 U.S.C. 1324. If this new provision is construed to apply to charities and churches, the same is true of existing law. Here is an example of the EXISTING law:

8 U.S.C. 1324(A)(1)(a)(ii) "knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;"

Applying the same logic to existing law that critics of HR 4437 are applying, a charity/church/neighbor that gives an illegal a ride home, or helps them to a soup kitchen, or anything else no matter how benign, could be thrown in prison. Has that happened? No. The current wikipedia article is inserting opinion by taking sides, specifically taking the side of the HR 4437 critics. The critic's position should either be stated as their opinion with no commentary, or at least provide a complete picture by showing how flawed this particular talking point is. Kaltes 22:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The current law you cite bans transporting aliens in furtherance of violating the law. The proposed law you cite bans assisting, or encouraging an alien to enter or remain in the country. Those are radically different. -Will Beback 23:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

29 states?[edit]

From the "Provisions" section: "It also reimburses local agencies in the 29 states along the border for costs related to detaining illegal aliens." How did that get in there? There are only four US states on the US-Mexico border: California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Am I missing something? My wild guess is that it should read "29 counties". Anyone? -- Hux 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds right. this page from the University of Houston gives the figure as 24 counties on the border, and I'd assume the discrepancy is due to a slight difference in the definition of what it means for a county to be a "border county" (i.e. one of its borders is the actual Mexican border vs. the county is within X miles of the Mexican border). --Zack 19:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

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

Diversity Immigrant Visa Program[edit]

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

First line[edit]

I don't believe H.R. 4437 is a resolution as previously stated in the first line of the article. I've changed it to House of Representatives bill. --MZMcBride 02:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resolutions in a legislative body don't have force or effect. This is a bill, not a resolution. Also, House Resolutions aren't abbreviated H.R., they're abrreviated H.Res.. [3]. --MZMcBride 17:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias against H.R. 4437[edit]

As an unregistered user, I have tried to write more in the "for the bill" paragraphs to balance the article's point of view, but it has continually been erased. Having said this, I would like to point out that this article is very biased against H.R. 4437. All I would like to ask is that a registered user please write more arguments for the bill in order to create a neutral viewpoint and that they not be erased by pro-illegal crusaders. There are many other rational reasons to support H.R. 4437 that have not been listed. Thank you for your time. 

                                    -Rob
I've been watching this page and have not noticed the specifically anti-4437 editing you mention. Perhaps if you list some of the 'pro' arguments here someone will update the article. -- Hux 16:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, register and do it yourself. --Darth Borehd 05:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


--Again, this is something weird: why no one starts to think on how the "illegals" cross the border when Homeland Security is doing their job? 24 or something counties there...and still, people crossing? Maybe it's the fault of corrupt officials who let those people cross undocumented. And why people disguise the words in the article when everything is still the same? Seems that Americans are always defending themselves, protecting themselves from criticism and show superior behavior towards the ones who needs a Green Card. (Hispano de Mexico. Proud to be Latin. Thanks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.165.48 (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

retroactive[edit]

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

Wording questions[edit]

A couple questions. The article says the bill "Sets the minimum sentence for fraudulent documents at 10 years". Does this mean it sets the minimum sentence for possessing the doccuments, or for making them?

I changed "states that sponsor terror" to "states that sponsor terrorism", since I don't think it's correct to use terror where you mean terrorism, but I could be wrong. If I am, revert me and accept my appologies.

What does this section mean: "Prohibits grants to federal, state, or local government agencies that enact or maintain a sanctuary policy. (House Amendment 659, authored by Thomas Tancredo) (withdrawn 12/16/2005 by unanimous consent)"? That part's no longer in the bill? Shouldn't that point be moved to a subsection entitled "removed provisions" or some such then?

I marked this sentence as needing a citation: "Millions of individuals, both illegal immigrants and supportive legal residents, have protested against the legislation because of the perception that it will result in mass deportation" because the way it's phrased it sounsd like that misperception is why the millions protested. I'd support a change to something like "Millions of individuals, both illegal immigrants and supportive legal residents, have protested against the legislation. XXX source writes that the protests were motivated by the perception that it will result in mass deportation"

It's not clear to me what the bill's status is. It was passed by the house, does that mean its laws are active? In that case, we should change the wording from the hypothetical ("the bill would...").

I did some other copy editing and wording changes that I doubt will cause any trouble, but if they do let me know here or on my talk page. delldot | talk 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 109th Congress ended without Senate passage, so the bill's status is defunct.--Carwil 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding that update, Carwil! delldot | talk 06:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commas[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Border_Protection,_Anti-terrorism_and_Illegal_Immigration_Control_Act_of_2005&oldid=1200266524"