Talk:Immigration to the United States/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Environment section seems like OR to me

What's up with the 5 paragraph environment section that argues that immigration to the U.S. is the cause of our environmental troubles? The section is overflowing with sources, but the argument it makes is ridiculous. I could see an increase in population being talked about as a cause of environmental pressures in an article on the environment, but to include it in an article about immigration seems way off base to me. I would be in favor of deleting the entire section. Let me know what you think. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

For starters, it's tangential. It's also deeply unecyclopedically synthetic. Paul Ehrlich does not say we should reduce immigration to the United States. Even if he, or (more likely, I suspect) anti-immigrant groups said that, this article doesn't need to be a mouthpiece for that point-of-view. If there's significant sources for those against immigration to the United States because of environmental concerns, it belongs as a section under an article about the anti-immigration movement here, or a separate article.69.94.192.147 (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Error in terminology

This sentence is inaccurate: "Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year, of whom about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S."

The term "change of status" refers only to a lawful change from one category of temporary visa to another category of temporary visa. For example, a change from F-1 student status to H-1B Specialty Occupation for Professionals, is a "change of status."

What you are talking about is properly termed "Adjustment of Status," and that means changing from a lawful temporary visa category, to a permanent resident category. The F-1 student (or tourist or H-1B worker) who marries an American citizen and becomes a lawful permanent resident has "adjusted status." Likewise, the tourist or student or temporary worker who convinces the Department of Homeland Security that he or she is performing highly significant work that benefits the entire United States and is granted a National Interest Waiver and permanent residency, has "adjusted status."

A change from one temporary category to another is "change of status" in federal law, and a change from any temporary (or "nonimmigrant") visa category to permanent residency (or "immigrant" status) is "adjustment of status" in federal law. Best regards, Brent Poirier, Immigration Lawyer 71.232.132.47 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

All-time high?

Isn't it a bit far-fetched to speak of an all-time high in naturalization? The linked document only reaches back as far as 2006. The Dossier of Vanguardia (Número 22, Enero/Marzo 2007, Inmigrantes - El continente móvil, p. 30) gives even slightly higher numbers:

- 2002: 1.063.732
- 2003: 705.827
- 2004: 946.142

92.228.22.69 (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The top two years so far have been 2008 (1,046,539) then 1996 (1,040,991). Only 9 other years exceeded 500,000 and they were all later than 1996. See http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2008/table20.xls. TanjBennett (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

hi this is true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.84.129 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Immigration: Not Migration

Those that immigrated to the dozens of English colonies of North America, prior to the late eighteenth century, should not be termed "U. S. immigrants". The migration and subsequent founding of States by non-foreign peoples doth not make them immigrants, nor does such grant indigenous North Americans native status--being that they are really immigrants themselves. To immigrate is to come in to a body, not to travel to a different plot of land; the latter is to migrate. I hope that my contention with your articles has been understood and will be considered as with any other legitimate and reasoned point on wikipaedia. 157.252.146.251 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from SalinasJ, 7 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The first citation doesn't contain or imply anywhere in it that the United states accepts more immigrants as permanent residents. This either should be cited properly or deleted from the page. SalinasJ (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I don't understand how you missed seeing it. It is at the bottom of the first page of that source: "Today, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than the rest of the world combined." Celestra (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Article name change?

Shouldn't the article name be "Immigrants to the United States"? The topic goes well beyond the process of actual immigration. I realize the media uses the name to mean whatever the media is talking about at the time, but shouldn't an encyclopedia be a bit more exacting? Student7 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

anti-immigrant xenophobia

"While nearly four million Americans lost their jobs in 2009,[35] 1.1 million immigrants were granted legal residence over the same time period.[36]"

Is it possible to change this line? It seems to imply that immigrants are stealing jobs, whereas basic economics refutes this idea. This is a political bias (xenophobic) and doesn't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliversisson (talk • contribs) 05:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture

There have been complaints about the thin section on Popular Culture, so I reworked it using the scholarly literature. Rjensen (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Vincent G.Paradiso New York 1896 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Costantinoparadiso (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Immigration in literature"...

...seriously needs expansion, no? Roscelese (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

inaccurate - "largest mass lynching" in us history new orleans

In 1871, an anti-chinese lynch mob in Los Angeles hanged 17 Chinese and stabbed two to death, according to Jean Pfaelzer's Driven Out, the Secret War Against Chinese Americans, P. 47. The cited page is viewable at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Out-Forgotten-against-Americans/dp/0520256948/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1285008442&sr=8-1#reader_0520256948 . This seems to be 8 more than the italians who were lynched in New Orleans. jackbrown (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Seeker718, 29 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I noticed one sentence (at least I think it's a new sentence) begins "50 percent of immigrants say the government has become tougher...." Please change "50 percent" to "Fifty percent" in order to make it clear that a new sentence has begun. If this is not meant to be a new sentence, then please insert a comma before it, to separate it from the previous clause.

Thank you.

Seeker718 (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Chevymontecarlo. 19:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Piroschki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.143.71.37 (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Current US immigration policy

this article does not provide any information whatsoever about current united states immigration policy. i think there should be a section on that.

for anyone who wants to do this, here's a very reliable source

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7051/02-28-Immigration.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.189.105 (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

United States, U.S., USA, People of The United States....

It's as tho someone bent over backwords to take away the words "American" and "America". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The page begins, "American immigration (or immigration to the United States of America)..." No backwords I can see. Pfly (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of Asylum for Refugees in Legal Issues

Not sure why it's not considered neutral. Unless someone can point out exactly where the bias exists in that section, I will remove the Neutrality tag. Agsftw (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Quippo, 23 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.[1] Since the liberalization of immigration policy in 1965,[2] the number of first- generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled,[3] from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007.[4] 1,046,539 persons were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 2008. The leading emigrating countries to the United States were Mexico, India, and the Philippines.[5]

Quippo (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be the same as the existing text. What is the request change?   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. As per Will Beback. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You're right but the American Dream isn't an important issue for the immigration of the United States. So it is better, when the disadvantages and advantages of immigration are listed. and the first sentence of this page, i found inappropriate. the history doesn't matter. i think a short describtion is enough. please, change them. thank you!

Edit request from Thedr9wningman, 8 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} This part requests a citation: "Some Americans have not completely adjusted to the largely non-European immigration and racism does occur. After the September 11 attacks, many Middle-Eastern immigrants and those perceived to be of Middle-Eastern origins were targets of hate crimes.[citation needed]"

Here is a citation that supports this supposition [1]

Thedr9wningman (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your expostulation remains unsourced thus unsupported, as in the text you quote there's no reference at all to "Middle-Eastern immigrants". Please try again.
Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Since this appears to have already been taken care of (the above noted sentence is not currently in the article), I'm untranscluding this request to remove it from the ESp category. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Shortening Article

What need is there for the graph at Immigration by state?Poxywallow (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.122.192.80, 23 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The first referenced piece of information from your text is from a state run chinese news agency. This is not a reputable source for demographic information about US immigration. Further, it does not mention the chinese website it gets the information from in its link. I took this as a tacit admission of the unreliability of the source from whoever posted and obscufred this. I have donated to wikipedia. I expect it to do better.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/17/content_5215770.htm

70.122.192.80 (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a better source we can use? — Bility (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Mr 70.122.192.80, pay attention that WP isn't a pay for play. Whay don't you click here for "What Wikipedia is" instead. And thanks, Bility, for your contribution. Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

POV (crime)

If you compare the version of the article from March 30, before Mirardre got busy, to the present version of the article [2], it's pretty obvious what was done here. Mirardre removed any references to academic studies which have found that immigrants have lower crime rates than natives and replaced them with "think-tank" sources which suggest a different result. This completely unbalanced and poved the presentation.

Furthermore, the studies which were left in, were POVed in their description. For example, the phrase In his 1999 book Crime and Immigrant Youth, sociologist Tony Waters argued that immigrants themselves are less likely to be arrested and incarcerated; before the edits was unqualified and left to speak for itself. Mirardre moved it to a more obscure corner of the article and added Other studies have suggested that immigrants are underrepresented in criminal statistics. right before it - how the hey does this addition follow from what the source is actually saying? This is misrepresentation and pov pure and simple.

I added a POV tag as a result, but now, looking over all these changes again and seeing how skewed and biased they were, I am simply going to revert to the pre-massive pov-ing version. At that point please discuss proposed changes on talk as this is a controversial topic. Furthermore, it is fine to add well-sourced material (though that too should be brought up on talk), but please don't remove well sourced material, merely because it disagrees with a particular pov.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Before my edits there were almost no opposing views which I have added. The current version is far more balanced. Exactly what well-sourced material was removed? Miradre (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Immigration Navbox

In looking for information about immigration to the United States, I noticed that the navigation box is titled Illegal Immigration to the United States and related topics, whose neutrality in the main article is under dispute. I would suggest that the navigation box be retitled to Immigration in the United States (or something similar) and that the navigation box be reordered to reflect the change. While I could just change it, I wanted some consensus before doing so. --Enos733 (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

german ancestry

While the main image [3] indicates that the largest section of the population have German ancestry, the article does very little (almost nothing) in describing the historical reasons behind that. Does somebody know about any reference that will shed some light on this? - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

[[4]] - this article may have some relevant contents. Can excerpts be included here? - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 20:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
yes--you can cut & paste or paraphrase. in the edit summary mention you used German American article. Rjensen (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Immigration to the United States

Foreign-born population (2010):   39,955,673 (US Census Bureau)
Foreign population (2010):   23.4 million ( Legal permanent residents: 12.6 million ) (DHS)
Illegal residents (2010):   10.8 million (DHS)
New legal permanent residents (2010):   1,042,625 ( new immigrants: 476,049 )(DHS)
Top ten emigrant countries in 2010 were:
Mexico   139,120
China   70,863
India   69,162
Philippines   58,173
Dominican Republic   53,870
Cuba   33,573
Vietnam   30,632
Haiti   22,582
Colombia   22,406
South Korea   22,227


Place of birth for the foreign-born population in the United States ( US Census Bureau ):
Top ten countries   2010
Mexico   11,711,103
China   2,166,526
India   1,780,322
Philippines   1,777,588
Vietnam   1,240,542
El Salvador   1,214,049
Cuba   1,104,679
Korea   1,100,422
Dominican Republic   879,187
Guatemala   830,824


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.248.80 (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wholesale erasures based on Aprock's personal POV

One editor Aprock has been making wholesale erasures of sourced material added by numerous editors (not me) based on his personal POV. The rule is that all serious views have to be included to provided balanced Neutral POV. Challenges to the quality of sources need evidence stronger rather than merely a delete key--so provide the challenges here first. Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You also reintroduced statements tagged with citation needed. I agree with Aprock's judgment, those sources are not the kind of high quality sources that would be required for backing up such claims. The rule is not that all serious views should be included, it is that notable views should be included weighted according to notability. Some of the views removed by Aprock are clearly small minority views proposed in a single primary source. That does not justify inclusion. This article like all other articles should be based primarily on secondary sources summarising the primary literature about the topic, news articles, and single research articles that cannot be shown to have had a serious impact in the field are not good enough for most purposes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
@Rjensen, I removed unsourced and poorly sourced material. If you think specific sources or content are worth keeping, by all means open the discussion. I'm not sure what you're referring to with respect to "the delete key". I believe I noted that most of the sources that I did remove were either undue, or not reliable sources. If you like, we can open the discussion. I'll add a new section below. I assume that you'll be constructively engaging in talk page discussion. aprock (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Think tanks are one of the major intellectual sources --and RS--for the current immigration debate and wholesale challenging them is ridiculous. Essays by leading experts are RS and should not be erased. The POV rules require all important viewpoints be included--not erased. Rjensen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You might consider (a) being specific to which sources you are referring to here, and (b) joining the discussion below. The generalities you discuss here are not constructive with respect to determining which sources are in fact reliable and representative of mainstream views. Many of the references I removed, were removed exactly because they do not represent important viewpoints. aprock (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen in that we should discuss before chopping. Secondary sources are of course preferred, but there are instances when primary information is helpful as well, used in combination with secondary sources. The Heather Mac Donald information -- isn't that a secondary source (ie HMD is a commentator, basing judgments on primary material?) -- and why was this information removed?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, when we have mainstream secondary sources which establish weight, inclusion makes sense. Without any secondary sources, we have a violation of WP:UNDUE. See the talk page of WP:NPOV more more discussion. aprock (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

See the section below, or start a new section if you'd like to discuss that specific source. aprock (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Effects on African Americans

This section is based on a primary source, with no secondary source establishing due weight. I suggest the section be removed as undue unless broader mainstream sourcing can be found. aprock (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That is false. The section is clearly cited to secondary source by a famous expert writing in a leading economics journal. ^ Borjas, G. J.; Grogger, J.; Hanson, G. H. (2010). "Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men". Economica 77 (306): 255–282. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00803.x. --George J. Borjas has an endowed chair at the Kennedy School Harvard! and previously was a professor at the U of California. Not knowing who he is a sign on poor research indeed. Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Novel conclusions and novel synthesis of data is primary work, not secondary. Likewise, a single citation to a research journal is not enough to make the research due in a general discussion of US immigration. Please provide a mainstream secondary source which demonstrates that this specific topic has sufficient weight for inclusion. aprock (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The "Effects on African Americans" -- it is sourced; seems right to me; only possible problem might be that it is too long to make the point -- I could write the paragraph in a sentence. So I condensed it. Not sure if it deserves its own section since its only one line.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you did not address the issue of WP:UNDUE (and WP:PRIMARY) that I raised. No one is disputing the fact that it is sourced. aprock (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense. Wiki rules are that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." PRIMARY = "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." -- for example a forst hand account by an immigrant. That is not involved here. UNDUE refers only to giving exaggerated emphasis on a minority viewpoint, which is not at issue here. (Who says it's a minority view? Where is the majority view?) Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen. Academics used (supposedly) primary data X and concluded Y. So, why can we not include that in Wikipedia? And say that one study suggested Y. About the undue -- yes it was a bit long (I agree) so I trimmed it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
That's now how I understand WP:UNDUE. I'll start a thread at the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
See [5]. aprock (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The article in question written by scholars holding chairs at Harvard & U Chicago & U California --it is a mainstream secondary source published in 2010 by a leading British economics journal and citing dozens of other scholars. Aprock has no evidence whatever that it is a fringe notion like the "flat earth" (which is the example Wiki uses for UNDUE) --he has in fact not cited any RS for his views on immigration. That calls into question his competence to evaluate any RS on this topic. Rjensen (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Correction, I never once suggested anything with respect to WP:FRINGE. aprock (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Aprock erased without even reading the article or doing any research and cited irrelevant Wiki rules. Rjensen (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Aprock's interpretation of what constitutes a primary source and when to use it is correct. We can find ostensibly reliable primary sources arguing anything at all, that is why we must rely on secondary sources to determine how to weigh viewpoints against eachother according to notability. A research article may be a secondary source when it summarises previous research, but when it synthesises them in order to present a new conclusion it is a primary source. It is impossible to establish whether a view is majority or minority view based on a single primary source - that can only be determined by finding out how secondary sources regard those sources. If these professors are in fact leading scholars in their field it should not be difficult to find summaries of their work and descriptions of its reception in secondary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Maunus has a view of primary sources that deviates dramatically from the Wikipedia definition. By his account we cannot report it when a scholar makes any finding. (In this case, Borjas was making more precise estimates that had been made by numerous other scholars.) The scholarly article in question is a secondary source and it is based on primary sources. Go to books.google and enter "Borjas NBER" and you will get over 2000 citations to Borjas work by other scholars. That's what "leading" means. Rjensen (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting my stated opinion and showing a lack of understanding of WP:PRIMARY.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Maunus perhaps can quote the Wiki definition of Primary he is using. The article is a standard secondary source with zero "primary" about it. Rjensen (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Footnotes problem

There are some footnotes at the bottom that seems to be broken, needed to be fix.Trongphu (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC) As well, link 57 is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.41.103 (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


  • another issue is in the main article FOOTNOTE (19) article from Houston, of over one million immigrating to the United States in 1907 is a FALSE STATISTIC look at the correlation to population growth in United States as a whole from dates 1890-1930, the growth didnt show enough of an increase for the one million 1907 immigration have ever taken place. I estimate an immigration of only 200,000 or less that year to have taken place. - TwoAndrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoAndrew (talk • contribs) 05:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

More sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome!
I hope that these help Wikipedians better develop this article and others related to it
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The Process of Immigration?

Do you think this article should have more information about how one actually becomes an immigrant of the United States? When I open up a wiki on "Immigration to the United States," I think of the process of actually obtaining a visa to permanently reside in this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJIT HUM ST2 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes

This article has a profound knowledge-vacuum that utterly corrupts public trust of Wikipedia as a credible information source. I fixed that a little under a year ago by putting in some information with facts and links to university research and government web sites. I made a whole new separate article to fix the problem about 4 months ago after facts and references were deleted. That new article was deleted and forwarded back to the original article.

I received threats from administrators about being banned after facts and links were deleted for government agencies and university research. One of the administrators left a note on my talk page that indicates peer reviewed published information from universities is unacceptable for Wikipedia references, like UCSB and UCLA. Same goes for government agencies, like Immigration Services and Department of Homeland Security. I'm having a hard time finding those policies anywhere except my talk page.

Here are some of the references that were deleted:

The following facts are also missing:

Wikipedia's justification for tax-exempt status is questionable because editing by administrators to "change facts" that effect how people vote is pretty obvious political activity, and that violates IRS charity rules (click here). nanoatzin (talk)

Citation needed for USCIS funding figure

There is a claim that USCIS is "99% funded by immigrant application fees". This needs a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.36.87 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

USCIS Funding Reference

Almost 96 percent of USCIS’s fiscal year 2008 budget of $2.6 billion was expected to have come from fees (from GAO).

nanoatzin (talk)

Untitled

  • Effects of immigration/Demographics directly contradicts itself... 397 million population in the first estimate, 408 million in the 2nd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.24.86.100 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Two other Controversial Topics

For the people wanting to come to the United States and become a citizen but can't read or write, what is their option? These skills are a necessity to be considered becoming a citizen through the forms and applications they have to fill out. If they can't do so does that lead them to try and enter America illegally? Or is it automatically out of the question if someone can't do these skills? Also I feel the article could be more interesting if they talked about the illegal immigration that goes on. For example are people considered a legal immigrant if they step foot on US soil without getting caught by US security or not? And what that process is?


152.23.247.140 (talk)Leigh Andrew —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Public Opinion section misquotes source:

"In 2004, 55% of Americans believed legal immigration should remain at the current level or increased and 41% said it should be decreased"

Quote from referenced article actually states that "Today, nearly as many people (37 percent) say legal immigration should be kept at its present level as say it should be decreased (41 percent). While only 18 percent say that legal immigration should be increased" — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhineasRex00 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Literacy Requirement

There is no literacy requirement because that would exclude refugees. All immigrants consult with an immigration attorney, paralegal, or government representative that will fill out the paperwork for them. That is because there are hundreds of forms and thousands of time limits that change every few months. The actual immigrant rarely fills out any documents even if they comprehend English at the university level. References are at the bottom of the page. nanoatzin (talk)

Immigration Process Summary

There is actually no such thing as legal immigration or illegal immigration. What actually happens is that almost every immigrant that crosses a border pays about $100 for a 90 day tourist visa that can be renewed at the original border crossing. It is unconstitutional to deny an entry visa to non-criminals. Immigrants can work legally as day laborers while here. Employers can hire immigrants if no citizens apply for a job advertised 30 days or longer in a local newspaper with sufficient distribution, but the employer must pay to document the immigrant which will extend their visa. Immigrant workers become illegal when the employer fails to pay the documentation fee. Immigrants with an expired visa are deported and banned from re-entry for a year or so, and must be in their home country to receive an updated visa. Some banned immigrants sneak across the desert without a visa but that problem declined sharply when the Mexican economy improved in 2005. References are at the bottom of the page. nanoatzin (talk)

There is such thing as legal immigration - Congress enacts a bill, which when approved by the House and Senate, is signed by the President. States are free to develop their own immigration law, but are kept in the (general) intent of Federal Law. Cases of apparent Constitutionality issues come up between the States and the Federal Government. Bottom line - a non-US citizen has zero Constitutional rights. Immigration is a function of Government, and may be controlled - or heck the US could stop all immigration tomorrow if Congress passes a law and the President signs it. You seem to have quite the NPOV on this subject - and this comment only addresses the falshoods presented in your first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Pleased to meet you Patriot. The correct term used by the US government to describe an undocumented immigrant is: "overstayed visa limit". I'm not certain I understand how the immigration process is not related to immigration. Perhaps you can help me with that? Here is all the information about the immigration process with links to government web sites and legal authorities that explain everything anyone might need to know (you are welcome to click links to observe the references).
Also:
I hope this finds you well. Best regards, nanoatzin (talk)

Knowledge Vacuum

The following facts are missing from the article, which makes it inaccurate and misleading. I was curious where these should be added?

The following facts are also missing:

nanoatzin (talk)

Please stick with things that pertain to the article. Hlaf of the "facts" really don't belong in this article. Patriot1010 (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
USCIS, Department of State, Homeland Security, and Department of Labor all directly control "Immigration to the United States". I'm pretty sure that's relevant to immigration but you are welcome to provide an alternate opinion. The bar association provides expert legal opinions, and I'm pretty sure a legal opinion on immigration is related to immigration. California used the drivers license ban in the Real ID Act of 2005 to confiscate property from immigrants, and I'm pretty sure that is also related to "Immigration to the United States". Mexican Repatriation is pretty obviously related to immigration.
Perhaps you can copy the list and explain each specific objection to each individual fact?
nanoatzin (talk)

Emigration to the United States

I have created a redirect from this title here. Here's a question: isn't this the more correct term? A quick google book search gives 4,580 hits for "immigration to the United States" and 36,800 results for "emigration to the United States"... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Foreign born population of the United States by country of birth in 2011

The 'country of birth' table incorrectly shows the UK total as only, 356,558. It should be 689,040.

The source clearly proves this:

  • England - 356,558
  • UK, other - 259,186
  • Scotland - 60,822
  • Northern Ireland - 12,474

94.175.13.142 (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Citation #95 is dead - footnotes

I was doing research for a school project trying to find information and came across this citation. the link is dead but I found the research done by the pew hispanic center here: 

            http://www.pewhispanic.org/2006/08/10/growth-in-the-foreign-born-workforce-and-employment-of-the-native-born/

I would have fixed the citation myself but this is a semi-protected page and I haven't used my wiki account in years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.226.189 (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Request to remove "Another claim supporting expanding immigration levels is that immigrants mostly do jobs Americans do not want"

the claim that "immigrants mostly do jobs Americans do not want" is a myth. Most immigrants are doing jobs that many Americans do or would be happy to do. The "jobs" Americans did not want to do were jobs that were long hours and low wage...since immigrants are used to work outside legal standards. Today, we seem ILLEGAL immigrants working in construction, as painters, movers, and many other jobs that Americans with only a high school education used to covet. The fact is that immigrants are used to a lower standard of living and are will to live hand to mouth, so will work for very low wages and long hours without overtime pay or benefits. Americans have mortgages and car loans and college funds for their children and cannot afford to work for the same low wages that immigrants are willing to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthisfreedomandjustice (talk • contribs) 01:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

the comment is contradictory-- yes American want the jobs ... no they don't. This is one reason we ask editors to use and cite reliable sources. Immigrants have rent and car expenses too, by the way, and send $$ back to Mexico/etc. Rjensen (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
[6][7][8][9][10]User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
"Immigrants have rent and car expenses too", yes immigrants do, but illegals don't buy a car on credit since they cannot legally drive. Illegals have rent as well, but many live several to a rental unit that is supposed to be for 1 or 2 people. Americans are willing to do the jobs, but they are not able to since the pay would not be enough to sustain the American way of life. Illegals are source of cheap labor and are driving down the pay level for many types of jobs. Jobs that used to be union and pay $20 hr are now $10 hr and non union, so no benefits. Due to the availability of illegal workers willing to work for $10 hr as carpenters, working in construction becomes financially no different than working at McDonalds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthisfreedomandjustice (talk • contribs) 18:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Very doubtful claim in the first paragraph

"In 2006, the United States accepted more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined."

This claim is only true in a very narrow context. As it is on the page, it is very misleading because it does not contain any information about the limitations of the claim. The reference given (reference 1) is not a periodical, not an original source, gives no citations, and adds no credibility to the article. If you are interested, politifact oregon gave a good analysis of this myth when a politician brought it up. The sentence is not crucial to the article, so I would suggest simply deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.131.51 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You've made an excellent point. Thank you for that great source. A key fact is pointed out by the article: "The U.S. receives fewer "permanent-type" immigrants per capita than most other OECD countries. For that fact, he offered us a table which shows, indeed, the U.S. is in 18th place in that measurement." I think this fact could be used to replace the rather incorrect statement currently in the introductory paragraph. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 09:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal Issues

The "miscellaneous documented" section should be removed, or changed and expanded. Cancellation of removal is not a significant source of lawful permanent residence - less than U visa adjustments, to mention just one. It makes no sense to mention it, unless it was mentioned in a subsection on removal (deportation) as one of many available forms of relief. Same with private bills. There is no reason to single those two things out under this section. It seems as though the author's intent was to create a section for other paths to lawful permanent residence - but to call that "documented immigration" just doesn't work. [Dthomann] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomann (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


The quote "In 2009, President Bush set the admissions ceiling at 80,000 refugees.[208]" citation 208 does not work. Also, I don't think Bush was president in 2009.

Illegal Immigration

The section needs major revision. For one thing, it makes no mention of people who entered the country legally but lost their status - such as people who overstay visitor visas (estimated by some to be 40% of the undocumented population: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/sep/06/john-carter/john-carter-claim-40-percent-nations-illegal-resid/). For another thing, the 2012 Deferred Action memo was not from President Obama, it was from Janet Napolitano (as DHS Secretary). Yes, the policy change was at the President's direction, but the article does not say that, it says it was his memo.

Also, the part that says "Beginning March 4, 2013, illegal immigrants who can show that time apart from a U.S. spouse, child or parent would create “extreme hardship” can apply for legal visas without leaving the U.S." is just false. Under the law, people who came to the US without inspection but who are eligible to adjust status through a family petition first have to leave the US and process through a consulate abroad. The problem is that since 1998, a different law says that people who've been here illegally for a year or more and then leave (including to go to a consular interview) are ineligible for an immigrant visa for 10 years (3 years if they left after being here illegally between 180 days and one year). A waiver is available for people who can show extreme hardship to a US citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent, but the waiver has to be applied for after a person has left the country and been denied the visa. The process could take months or years, and if the waiver was denied, people were stuck abroad indefinitely. What has changed now, is that people whose only bar to adjustment is this 10 year bar (ie. no criminal history) can apply for the waiver from within the US, so they don't have to wait indefinitely after the interview. They still have to leave the country and complete the process at a consulate, it's just that the time away from their family can be reduced now. Oh, and hardship to children has never counted for these waivers. That's just false.

The article's failure to mention the departure bars is also an issue. Republicans in the 90s came up with them, thinking that all undocumented people would leave the country in order to avoid the bars. In fact, they had the opposite effect, because now people choose to remain in the US and try to stay under the radar rather than being separated from their families for years. [Dthomann] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomann (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent work on this article, which has long needed a lot of work. It's on my watchlist, and within the scope of a GLAM project for which I am gathering sources, so I should be able to add in some reliable sources, create some new subarticles, and otherwise do clean-up and fix-up to continue the fine work you've started here. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

detention bed quota

There seems to be a government law or regulation in place commonly known as "detention bed quota" or "bed mandate", commonly interpreted to set a quota requiring 34.000 immigrants to be locked up in detention facilities at any given time. Civil rights organizations have harshly criticized this regulation. Here is a list with media links on the topic, including the LA Times, NY Times, MSNBC, Washington Post and others: http://immigrantjustice.org/sites/immigrantjustice.org/files/MediaCoverage_DetentionBedMandate_2014.05.12.pdf - I believe this topic must be covered in this article. -- Seelefant (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Foreign born in 2011 table

The table shows the number of UK born residents as 356,558. This is only the number of people that identified as coming from England, as opposed to the UK. The correct number is 689,040.

Proof: 

     England                  356,558
     United Kingdom, other    259,186
     Scotland                 60,822
     Northern Ireland         12,474
                              = 689,040

It's been a week since this mistake was pointed out. Why hasn't it been corrected? How difficult is it to change a simple value?

what is the URL for your source?? Rjensen (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Source: http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/01/PHC-2011-FB-Stat-Profiles.pdf


2 weeks later, no change. What a surprise. This is starting to look like: 

disinformation (ˌdɪsɪnfəˈmeɪʃən)
n
1. false information intended to deceive or mislead

This needs to be corrected.

Interesting. You have to wonder why this is still being overlooked...208.123.223.72 (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a specific page number in mind? The citation of sources in that table is appallingly bad, for sure, especially because the table is attempting to mash together two different data sources. Short of blowing it up and starting over, what is the correct citation to the specific page for each specific country or region, and what other sources can be used to check the Pew report? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's on Page 5 of http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2013/01/PHC-2011-FB-Stat-Profiles.pdf

http://i.imgur.com/9pRWyxe.png

I'll let you sort out the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.13.142 (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear if this section is all about the same thing, since the original question is about the UK and the PEW reference isn't. What is the proof that "this is only the number of people that identified as coming from England, as opposed to the UK"? The "Proof" above makes no sense on its face since the numbers for "UK, other" are so high, much higher than Scotland or N. Ireland. I can only assume that "other" must refer to the Channel Islands, Mann etc, but these are tiny places. People do understand that the "United Kingdom" includes Scotland, England & N Ireland, right? I wonder if the source of confusion here is the fact that non-Brits often incorrectly (and offensively) say "England" to refer to the whole of the UK. alacarte (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the term "UK, other" is a bit misleading. It's made up of English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, and Northern Irish people that identify as British(and therefore will tell you they come from the UK). This is why the number is so great. It's NOT the number of people that came from the Channel Islands, or any other territory.

Anyway, the table has been changed.94.175.13.142 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Immigration to the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Entrepreneurship

Since the founding of the United States, immigrants have been contributing to the innovations that have made the country a more prosperous place. Of the vast amount of Nobel Prize winners that call the United States home, 30.7% have been immigrants.[6] The majority of these winners have been in the STEM(science,technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. As recently as 2013, four of the nine United states laureates were born another country.[7] In addition to Nobel Prize laureates, immigrants have also had a positive affect on innovation in the United States. Since 1975, the amount of patents issued to immigrants has been on the rise. The increase has been exceptionally present with those of Chinese and Indian descent. In 1975 the proportion of Chinese and Indian patent applications was below 2%. In 2004, these percentages rose to 9% and 6% respectively. At the same time, the amount of Anglo-Saxon decent dropped from 90% to 76%.[8] Aggregately, the amount on Non-United States citizens applying for patents has risen 24%.[9]

SpellMav (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Republican 2016 presidential 'hopeful' uses the same language as this article. 

Headline-1: Rubio: Law-abiding undocumented immigrants could stay

QUOTE: "Sen. Marco Rubio says people who immigrated to the U.S. illegally but haven’t committed any major crimes could be allowed to stay" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Crime

The article cites an Immigration Policy Center report from 2007 stating that native born citizens are five times as likely to commit crimes than immigrants are. This report has been since updated[10]

Thanks. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2015

this really doesn't make any scenes to me so could you write this in a way that a kindergartner would understand

Thanks so very much for all that you do for this site i really do appreciate it 76.177.83.132 (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: I'm sorry, but that's really not how the English Wikipedia works. For English-language articles in simpler language, I recommend looking at the Simple English Wikipedia. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful to the article if you to identify which portions you find hard to understand. Edititors here can then improve the understandability. Also, you could do an advanced Google-search and set the readability level to kidergarten. Then read other sources to understand IMMIGRATION. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Immigration to 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:

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) 23:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Source 9 is broken

"CBO: 748,000 Foreign Nationals Granted U.S. Permanent Residency Status in 2009 Because They Had Immediate Family Legally Living in America Archived January 14, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.". CNSnews.com. January 11, 2011

The archive link works however:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110114174615/http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-748000-foreign-nationals-granted-us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.122.217 (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


Long sentence

The per-country limit applies the same maximum on the number of visas to all countries regardless of their population and has therefore had the effect of significantly restricting immigration of persons born in populous nations such as Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines – the leading countries of origin for legally admitted immigrants to the United States in 2013; nevertheless, China, India, and Mexico were the leading countries of origin for immigrants overall to the United States in 2013, regardless of legal status, according to a U.S. Census Bureau study.

This, in the lead of an article of intrinsic appeal to a broad audience with less-than-perfect English-language reading skills. — MaxEnt 23:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

diaspora and immigration not the same thing

We should not have a diaspora chart added by a banned user. The chart is freeking rediculus!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The chart represents people outside the USA not those inside it. Wrong chart for here...removing again....as the chart for here is in the article ...the other one is in the other article.-- Moxy (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. That's all I was looking for. WCCasey (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

SKILLED IMMIGRANTS IN THE U.S.

SKILLED IMMIGRANTS IN THE U.S. should be merged here. There's significant overlap, though the new article has some interesting new references to offer. Wikishovel (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

New reasons for immigrating to the US / Environmental immigration

This subsection is essentially trivia and unsupported. The inferred assertion is that environmental changes is a new reason for immigration. This is highly questionable. Wouldn't the Irish potato blight be an environmental change that caused immigration? With a little digging, I suspect a large list of historical occurrences for environmental reasons could be found.

The source for this snippet is an opinion piece. The author mentions that thousands of Chinese are Fleeing to the U.S. but no proof how many are actually coming to to the U.S. for air quality reasons. She provides an anecdote from one real estate agent saying this is one reason Chinese immigrants are coming.

This is not an academic source nor does the author use any academic sources to back up her opinion, only one anecdote. I recommend striking the section unless someone comes up with more substantial material to build a more robust section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtgelt (talk • contribs) 20:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is the source http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/sep/07/froma-harrop-chinas-wealthy-are-our-environmental/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtgelt (talk • contribs) 20:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

Research shows that the United States excels at assimilating first- and second-generation immigrants relative to many other Western countries. Citation needed should be added? Denise antrim (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Already cited under Assimilation. If you believe there should be citations in the lead as well, gain consensus first; see WP:LEADCITE. ChamithN (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Immigration to 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:

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) 17:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Immigration to 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:

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) 03:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Immigration to 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:

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) 11:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Education paragraph

This paragraph doesn't make much sense:

"A 2015 study using correspondence tests "found that when considering requests from prospective students seeking mentoring in the future, faculty were significantly more responsive to White males than to all other categories of students, collectively, particularly in higher-paying disciplines and private institutions."[174] Through affirmative action, there is reason to believe that elite colleges favor minority applicants.[175]

It doesn't have anything to do with immigration statistics. It's just a general paragraph that doesn't mention anything regarding the education of immigrants, the number of immigrants who graduate from high school, college, etc. It should be deleted since it provides no relevant info. Minority applicants may be any minority, and not necessarily immigrants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

All Americans Are Immigrants

You seem to fail to mentions the Pre-Columbian era from your Native American article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States). All Americans are immigrants even 'Native Americans', for that matter everyone in the world not living in the Olduvai Gorge are immigrants. So Trump's anti-immigrant stance is in line with US History of ostracizing, rejecting, bullying and attempting to block new immigrants from coming to the US. Americans like to proclaim, "We are a Nation of Immigrants!" But the sad fact is this country has an appalling record of treatment of immigrants until the hast half of the last century. Please add a short segment that refers to when Native Americans immigrated during the Pre-Columbian period and a link to that info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:8204:E00:71E2:5EB3:ECB:3E62 (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I beg to differ. The U.S. in the past has not ostracized, bullied or rejected immigrants to this nation any more than any other country does on this planet, and to assert this is to reveal an incredibly obvious anti-American sentiment. Many immigrants (especially Moslems) to Europe have NOT experienced welcoming arms; quite the opposite. So you can take your political statement and rethink it, although I doubt you will. I'd hate to be an American immigrant to your country. I know I'd be bullied, ostracized etc. by evidence of your statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"US History of ostracizing, rejecting, bullying and attempting to block new immigrants from coming to the US"

While you are correct that the United States has a long history of anti-immigrant sentiment, I think this is better covered in the article Nativism. It already covers Anti-Catholic, Anti-German, and Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States. Dimadick (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Citation Needed

The third paragraph of this article makes the following statement: "Research finds that immigration either has no impact on the crime rate or that it reduces the crime rate in the United States." This sentence absolutely demands citation, as there are numerous conflicts with it. The often touted Cato Institute's study on the subject is not the sole research by far, and it is irresponsible to make this claim, especially when the "undocumented" qualifier is removed. If this irresponsible sentence must remain, recommend changing to say "Some research suggests-"or adding "legal immigration." Purported offense has nothing to do with factual exactitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:405:530:D84B:BEB4:9542:5A20 (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Sourced in main body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Additions to the Bibliography

I am planning on adding more information to the Public Opinion Section of this Article. Here are my preliminary Bibliography sources.

Newport, Frank. "American Public Opinion and Immigration". Gallup.com. Gallup, Inc. Retrieved 13 October 2017.

Gramlich, John (29 November 2016). "Trump voters want to build the wall, but are more divided on other immigration questions". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 13 October 2017.

Brown, Rainie (7 October 2016). "Americans less concerned than a decade ago over immigrants' impact on workforce". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 13 October 2017.

Cooper; Cox; Leinesch; Jones. "How Americans View Immigrants, and What They... | PRRI". PRRI.

Bowman; O'Neill; Sims. "AEI Political Report: Welcome to America? Public opinion on immigration issues - AEI". AEI. American Enterprise Institute.

Haynes; Merolia; Karthick (2016). Framing Immigrants: News Coverage, Public Opinion, and Policy. Russell Sage Foundation.

excellent sources -- sophisticated, recent, highly relevant. Rjensen (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ U.S. population hits 300 million
  2. ^ "Nancy Foner, George M. Fredrickson, Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in the United States (2005) p.120.
  3. ^ "Immigrants in the United States and the Current Economic Crisis", Demetrios G. Papademetriou and Aaron Terrazas, Migration Policy Institute, April 2009.
  4. ^ "Immigration Worldwide: Policies, Practices, and Trends". Uma A. Segal, Doreen Elliott, Nazneen S. Mayadas (2010),
  5. ^ "Naturalizations in the United States: 2008". Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report.
  6. ^ http://iir.gmu.edu/research/immigrant-nobel-prize-winners
  7. ^ http://immigrationimpact.com/2013/10/16/four-out-of-nine-of-this-years-u-s-nobel-prize-winners-are-immigrants/
  8. ^ Kerr, William. "The Ethnic Composition of US Inventors." Harvard Business School Working Paper 8, no. 006 (Revised) (2008). http://www.people.hbs.edu/wkerr/Kerr%20WP08_EthMatch.pdf
  9. ^ Wadhwa, Vivek, AnnaLee Saxenian, Ben A. Rissing, and Gary Gereffi. "America's new Immigrant entrepreneurs: Part I." Duke Science, Technology & Innovation Paper 23 (2007). http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/Americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs_I.pdf
  10. ^ Ewing, Walter. "Ph.D". American Immigration Council. American Immigration Council. Retrieved 9 July 2015.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Immigration_to_the_United_States/Archive_2&oldid=1136814653"