Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (immigration)

Help! the main article is tooooo wiiiiidddddeeeee wide

I can't read it on my browser. Bona Fides 13:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry, desculpme, perdon Bona Fides 13:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasons

I created this page for the reasons described in the preface after several arguments in article talk pages and the realization that until some guideline is adopted there will be no place to go to resolve controversies centrally, even though the issues are identical in each instance.

I favor "undocumented immigrant." I have attempted to be neutral in my presentation of arguments, however, except that I included counter-arguments to arguments in favor of the "illegal immigrant" proposal and did not on the "undocumented immigrant" proposal. If you have any to make, please insert them.

Some of the wording is stolen from User:RandomP's comments in various places. Discussion leading up to the decision to avoid any of the adjective+person-type terms where possible can be found in the talk page for illegal immigration. Kalkin 21:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never been passionate about the terminology, but it'd be nice to have a consistent convention covering the usage. I've seen editors go through articles changing every reference with claims that one or another term is POV, etc. A guideline would help. -Will Beback 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe I may have found a compromise. On several reports from the USCIS, the group is listed as "Unauthorized Immigrants". Would this be more acceptable to the open borders crowd? Perspixx 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What "open borders crowd"? I've never heard anyone advocate "open borders", certainly not here on Wikipedia. -Will Beback 03:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Although it's irrelevant to the discussion here, FYI I've heard several places and used myself the slogans "un mundo sin fronteras [es posible]" (a world without borders [is possible]) and "la lucha obrera no tiene fronteras" (the workers' struggle has no borders). Kalkin 04:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about "the open borders crowd," but "unauthorized immigrant" is acceptable to me. It doesn't have the same dehumanizing implications, and phrases like "unauthorized driver" and "unauthorized speaker" sound considerably less weird than "illegal driver" and "illegal speaker."

I'm afraid though that for those who don't like "undocumented immigrant" because it's not common enough, "unauthorized immigrant" will be even less acceptable - it gets only 17,800 Google Web results and 6 news results, versus 232,000 and 307 respectively for "undocumented immigrant." Kalkin 03:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unauthorized is a good compromise. I would be strongly against using the word "undocumented" for the political implications that you describe (that they simply left their papers at home). In addition, "undocumented" immigrants often have documents.... not legal ones (expired or forged).

The Pew Hispanic Center explains their usage of the term "unauthorized migrant": This report uses the term “unauthorized migrant” to mean a person who resides in the United States, but who is not a U.S. citizen, has not been admitted for permanent residence, and is not in a set of specific authorized temporary statuses permitting longer-term residence and work. (See Passel, Van Hook, and Bean 2004 for further discussion.) Various labels have been applied to this group of unauthorized migrants, including “undocumented immigrants,” “illegals,” “illegal aliens,” and “illegal immigrants.” The term “unauthorized migrant” best encompasses the population in our data because many migrants now enter the country or work using counterfeit documents and thus are not really "undocumented,” in the sense that they have documents, but not completely legal documents. [1] Calwatch 04:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "undocumented" implies that they simply forgot their papers, any more than "unauthorized" implies that they simply forgot to ask permission. But as I said above, I have no serious problem with "unauthorized."

One question - the Pew report recommends "unauthorized migrant" rather than "unauthorized immigrant." Is there a reason given for this? Does anyone have a reason why one rather than the other ought to be preferred? Kalkin 06:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Immigrant" carries with it the implicit recognition that there are different countries and that national borders exist. It is the act of moving from one country to another. I would suspect their suggestion of the use of "migrant" is a way of subtly delegitimizing individual nations and national borders. It suggests that the act of permanently moving from, say, Mexico to the United States is fundamentally no different than moving from Tennessee to Virginia. (The effect is much the same as that of the widespread use of the one-worldist term "global" these days in place of the correct term "international", which recognizes that different nations exist.) I, for one, would object to using "migrant" in place of "immigrant" as it would be POV to do so. There are also obvious problems with "undocumented" - besides being silly (undocumented? - what does being "documented" have to do with anything, the issue is whether they broke the law), it was invented as a reframing device to push a particular POV. The factually correct, widely used, and traditional term is "illegal alien". Since some people these days object to the term "alien" as dehumanizing or POV, perhaps the best compromise term is "illegal immigrant". It's the closest thing to NPOV while still being a widely used and commonly understood term. "Unauthorized immigrant" isn't in common use, which is the main problem with it. Wikipedia's job isn't to popularize new terms, it's to document those already in widespread use. Puppy Mill 10:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But the fact that the immigrant (or migrant) broke the law is not the issue, or at least is much broader than the issue at hand. An immigrant who has all of his legal documentation in order, who has crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's, but who rapes somebody, has broken the law. He is an illegal immigrant (if the term means anything at all), but still a documented or authorised immigrant. The issue is not his having broken the law, but rather, it is much more specific than that. He broke a specific law (or one of a specific set of laws) reguarding immigration procedures. "Undocumented" or "unauthorised" is a much more narrow concept than simply "illegal". Now you may argue that both are still too vauge, but if silliness is the criteria, then it may be the word "illegal" that is the silliest here, since it doesent even make an attempt to distinguish between an immigrant who rapes somebody, an immigrant whose presence is unauthorised for lack of proper documentation, or an immigrant who let his parking meter expire. It may be that neither word "undocumented" nor "unauthorised" fits exactly the class of immigrants which you wish to describe, and can therefor be ridiculed for their imprecision, but at least they make an attempt to narrow things down, which is more than can be said for "illegal". --Ramsey2006 09:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Lacking proper documents is the behavior by which immigrants in this case break the law - that's what being "undocumented" has to do with anything. "Illegal immigrant" still implies that the people rather than the actions are illegal, so even if it's not as bad as "illegal alien" it has many of the same problems.

I'd appreciate a source on the "undocumented immigrant" being invented as a POV reframing device. I have no idea where the term comes from, but it could be relevant. It's not that new, but it is somewhat new. So, for that matter, is "illegal immigrant" - in the 1950s even government documents used "wetback," although that's now seen as a racist slur.

"Unauthorized immigrant," however, is a genuine neologism. Wikipedia has an "avoid neologisms" policy. However, it says:

Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research — we don't do that here at Wikipedia. Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: no original research and verifiability.

Those problems don't seem to apply to "unauthorized immigrant." The meaning seems clear and undisputed, and we've already found a reputable source. So I'm leaning more and more in favor of it. Kalkin 22:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Undocumented" implies a total absence of documents, which isn't the case at all. Most of the young ones attend public school, and are issued student ID cards, which are a document. The ones who work receive pay stubs, and those who receive welfare and unemployment receive documents, as well. Again, I believe "illegal immigrant" is the proper term, as it has been used for decades and is instantly recognizable... you't adequately explain what an "undocumented immigrant" is, without mentioning that what they did was illegal. "Illegal immigrant" covers that. Only really stupid people would think that the term implies the existence of the person is illegal. But, I realize that some people go our of their way to be offended, so I would accept "unauthorized immigrant", as I proposed. Perspixx 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would stick with "Illegal immigrant," for several reasons. It is the most widely recognized of all the alternatives; the google numbers have been cited repeatedly on this page. It is the current standard on wikipedia, as all the other terms redirect to "illegal immigration." It is the widely accepted term in the press (which should carry considerable weight) as evidenced by the fact that it is the term reccomended by the Associated Press stylebook. "Illegal immigrant" is clear, concise, and does not bow to the pressure to euphemize, although it is more sensitive than other official standards: the U.S. government uses the widely-discarded "illegal alien." In contrast, the other proposed terms are all unsatisfactory for their own reasons. "Unauthorized immigrant" is both a genuine neologism (as has been adressed above) and a euphemism. "Undocumented immigrant" is both a euphemism and is not exclusive to the situation under discussion. There are many people who are citizens but do not possess appropriate documentation; that was recently the subject of an important judicial ruling regarding voting rights and the possesion of identification. In addition, as has also been adressed above, illegal immigrants do sometimes posess some form of documentation, either as a result of attending school or through forgery or even through the state (some states allow them to get driver's liscences or are debating the issue). The primary concern with "illegal immigrant" is that it refers to the person, rather than the act as illegal. That concern was raised above, and I can respect it. However, it is appropriate for this instance because it is not just the act of crossing the border which is illegal (and many illegal immigrants cross legally but overstay) but rather the continued presence in the country. Thus they are in a constant state of illegality: their very presence in the country is a constant violation of the law. Thus the term illegal modifying the person, not just the act, is appropriate. "Illegal immigrant" is clearly the best, most accurate, and most recognizable option. TheKaplan 07:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a reasoned and thoughtful contribution. Some issues: First, it is important to note that not only was Illegal immigration not named in an endorsement of "illegal immigrant", but that the latter was redirected to the former because of concerns similar to those in the proposal, as per the talk page. Second, I'm not sure why you think "unauthorized immigrant" is a euphemism. There is currently no argument for that position on the proposal page - if you believe it you ought to add one. Third, your point about the "constant state of illegality" is interesting, but ultimately I think neither true nor sufficient. An "illegal immigrant" is, at worst, in a permanent state of illegal residency - this ought not to make the person herself illegal. Other actions can involve a constant violation of the law, for example owning a factory run in violation of OSHA standards, but we do not refer to "illegal owners". And even if some law did actually put a person in a permanent state of illegality, I do not think Wikipedia should endorse this. There are countries in which homosexuality is illegal. Does Wikipedia refer to homosexuals in these countries as "sex criminals"? It would be technically accurate - going by the law of the country in question. We must be careful to avoid giving undue weight to U.S. law.

So I remain in favor of "unauthorized immigrant." In spite of all the above, the basic reason is quite simple. It is the only term I have found which is not extremely politically loaded. In personal conversation, I will continue to use "undocumented immigrant" - but I recognize that if Wikipedia were to adopt this as a standard, it would mean endless edit wars in order to retain consistency. I think that in these circumstances, a neologism is acceptable. The neutral point of view policy, one of Wikipedia's basics, is certainly far more important than the injunction to avoid neologisms. "Unauthorized immigrant" is correspondingly by far the least bad choice. Kalkin 19:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may: I have a very hard time accepting the redefinition of basic English terms because some think that they mean what they do not. This redefinition through incomprehension is at the root of this entire debate. A previous accepted term, "illegal alien" has been rejected from modern discourse because people who did not understand some basic English etymology decided that "alien" carried with it a connotation and basic meaning of little green men, ignoring the fact that alien primarily means only "other" or "foreign," from the Latin "alius," meaning (surprise!) "other" or "foreign," (by way of "alienus", meaning "belonging to someone else.") Now those who cannot accept that in English, when verbs become nouns, associated adverbs become ajectives, are seeking to redefine English again. He is illegally immigrating becomes he is an illigal immigrant by the laws of English (although illegal resident would be even better grammatically, it would not have widespread recognition and would not cover chronic migrants. For reasons as to why illegal immigrant still applies once the border is crossed, see my last bit on constant illegality). It is not our place as editors of an encyclopedia that merely seeks to collect already established and public knowledge WP:NOR to take it upon ourselves to effect social (because "illigal immigrant" is well-entrenched) and grammatical (because it is proper English) change (for more on that, see puppy mill's comments, above) . It is especially not our place to do this for the sole reason that those who do not understand English usage are offended by it. In regards to whether we would call a homosexual in a country that prohibits homosexuality a "sex criminal:" no, or we might use that phrase in sarcasm quotes. The reason for this is that in such a country there is not way to legally be gay. Thus, we say, "homosexual," and it automatically implies "in violation of the law." However, there is a way to legally immigrate. Thus we have legal immigration, and its opposite, illegal immigration. The opposite of a legal immigrant is an illegal immigrant. An "unauthorized immigrant" has an opposite which is an "authorized immigrant." This construction is demeaning to those that follow the law, drawing attention away from the fact that they took the proper steps to follow the law, and making it seem like someone just gave them permission. Not that that should matter (see above rant re: inventing connotations), but it shows that the sensitivity sword cuts both ways.

In addition, there is another thing to consider that might very well render this entire discussion moot. The introduction to this proposed policy page starts with: "Wikipedia's articles on immigration policy are, at present, extremely inconsistent in their use of terms to describe illegal immigration. A person who enters or resides in a country without legal authorization is sometimes described as an asylum seeker, sometimes as an undocumented immigrant, sometimes as an unauthorized immigrant, sometimes as an unlawful immigrant or illegal immigrant, and sometimes as an illegal alien." However, this is not the case. Most if not all of the major (and minor) immigration pages have already independently standardized to "illegal immigrant," and there has been little recent attempt on those pages to reopen the debate. It isn't much of a controversy anymore, at least not off this talk page. Happy editing to all, TheKaplan 17:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just not the case that "illegal immigrant" is the generally accepted standard term either in English or on Wikipedia, even if it is the most common (hard to prove). The references in the guideline proposal ought to make that clear enough; the terminology is contested so any standardization by Wikipedia is an intervention, a change, in normal usage. We just have to accept that and do the best we can to avoid controversy or unfairness.

The Wikipedia articles drift erratically because there are not enough regular editors on immigration issues to make a steady equilibrium, for example the ANSWER page right now uses "illegal immigrant" because you put it there recently in place of "undocumented immigrant" and I didn't want to fight it until a guideline had been adopted.

It's certainly not a law of English that adverb-verb phrases can always be converted to equivalent adjective-noun phrases. Compare "he's thinking stupidly" and "he's a stupid thinker," or "she's clearly winning" and "she's a clear winner." How often does he think stupidly? Did she win?

Since countries outlawing homosexuality generally only outlaw its practice, while homosexuality is usually considered a trait of a person, in most there could in fact be a legal homosexual.

Regarding both your brief history of words for immigrants and your attempt to find a demeaning connotation to "unauthorized immigrant." These things can't be looked at in a vacuum. There was/is a push to change the terminology in the one case and not the other because in the one case and not the other there are a substantial number of bigots who use certain terms to push hate. I suspect we disagree on how mainstream racism (anti-Latino and anti-Arab) is in the "anti-illegal immigrant" movement, but we ought to be able to agree that it's a problem with a real history in the U.S.

To close on a more cheerful note, having looked at your userboxes - Martin needs to finish writing the next damn book. Fire and blood! Kalkin 22:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The point I was making was that it isn't really contested anymore. Sure there have been debates at many pages, but these were resolved, as evidenced by the lack of new changes or new discussion, even at highly watched pages. It is true that I myself edited several pages, including ANSWER, to read, "illegal immigrant" but I did so long after it had become standard on immigration pages, and without the intention of creating an appearance of a standard where there was none. If you consider what the array of immigration pages look like without my recent changes, a steadily emerging standard is still evident. If anything, the only primary challenger to "illegal immigrant" is "illegal alien," which still dominates several law-oriented immigration pages.

In regards to the "attempt to find a demeaning connotation to 'unauthorized immigrant.'", that example was supposed to be silly, an indirect attempt at reducto ad absurdum, showing how using sensitivity as a criterion for correctness is a slippery slope, as miscontruing absolutely anything can lead to something that can be deemed offensive or demeaning.

Regarding the grammar issue, it is complicated by the fact that what illigal immigrants are actually doing is illegally residing, while 60% are also illegally immigrating in the sense of unlawfully crossing the border. Grammatically, "illegal resident" would be preferable in some circumstances but not all, while "illegal border crosser" whould be preferable in some circumstances but not all. "Illegal immigrant" is the term that encompasses both the act of illegal residency and the act of unlawfully crossing the border.

In regards to the historical context, I am certain that, as you say, we disagree on the prevalence of racism in the anti-illegal immigration movement, although I will of course concur that racism has been a historical problem for the United States in most if not all aspects of public policy. However, it is one of my pet peeves that people constantly confuse or deliberately miscontrue desire for the rule of law or culturally based concerns as racism. But getting back to the point, just because a term has been used in a sentence that conveys a negative impression does not make that term perjorative. For example: Suppose hypothetical racist Kenneth K. Kole was going to make several outrageous, vile statements. He says: "Muslims are lower than cockroaches." This sentence does not make the purely descripive term "Muslim" perjorative, nor give it any enduring negative connotation. Next Ken says: "Illegal immigrants are lower than cockroaches." This does not make the descriptive term "illegal immigrants" any less acceptable than it was, even though our hypothetical friend Kenneth is clearly be pushing hate. A factual term that describes documented, uncontested behavior such as "illegal immigrant" can never become a racial slur. It remains purely descriptive.

I know it's getting a little dense when my own writing gives me a headache reading it back, so I'll summarize:

• "Ilegal immigrant" has emerged as the standard on wikipedia without any help from this talk page, so as genuinely enjoyable as this discussion is, it is unneccesary at this time
• The possibility of being contrued as offensive is not an appropriate criterion for excision from the language
• "Illegal immigrant" is the appropriate grammatical construction to encompass both the act of illegally residing and border crossing
• The use of a term by people promoting hate does not make the term perjorative if it is descriptive

And he better get on with that book. Fire and Blood! TheKaplan 06:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think another long comment would be particularly useful or improve my case much, the discussion is indeed getting a more than a little dense, so I'll just respond on one quick point. A non-pejorative term can become pejorative by consistent use in a pejorative context. "Negro" and less recently "nigger" were once neutral and no longer are. "Wetback" was originally at least mainstream, see Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback", but is now seen as a anti-Mexican racist slur. To summarize myself, I see just one point as fundamental:

• The actuality of being construed as offensive is an appropriate criterion for exclusion of a term from Wikipedia. (Absent problems with all alternatives far more serious than exist with "unauthorized.")

Cheers, Kalkin 20:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly trivial to show the act of moving from Mexico to the United States is not fundamentally different from the act of moving from Virgina to Tennessee. Economically, it has all the implications of the movement of labor. Socially, it has all the implications of the movement of persons. If you want to get into political theory, the United States in particular bases its government's legitimacy on popular sovereignty. That basic normative ideal suggests that either every person has the same rights, or that no person has any rights; this argument was, in fact, used in 1789 along with several other explorations of arguments why women should not have the same political rights as men, each such argument quickly failing to pass the most basic reasoning. The difference between whether a person is or is not conferred the rights of citizenship is a legal matter, yet the fundamental ideals allowing the government to make and execute law seem incompatible with any such thing: Kassner, 2006, responds to Waldron's assertion that democracy is merely a process in part by tearing down Waldron's basic assertion that if a majority of voters vote to remove the right to vote from a minority of voters, that is not just "democracy" in name, but is well and proper; therefor, what can we say about a person who moves to a place, becomes a resident, lives in the community as any other human being, works in the community, patronizes businesses in the community, and is held to those laws having jurisdiction over all members of the community?

You seem to suggest that your view is NPOV and the above view is POV, and frame the use of "migrant" as some sort of conspiracy theory. Even putting that aside, you suggest that a nation has borders only if people cannot move in and out of it and be treated as equal human beings; yet if we were to grant to every person, immediately upon taking up residence, full citizenship, then the laws of the United States—or of any nation doing such a thing—would extend to the borders of the United States. How does a nation have borders if people within these supposed borders are not citizens of that nation, but rather are foreign? A strange concept. John Moser (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The world is bigger than the United States

The draft convention is focussed on the USA, and forgets that people might migrate (legally or otherwise) to or from other countries, too. For example, the idea that "illegal immigrant" might be offensive to Latinos just seems odd when read somewhere that does not have many Latinos. Likewise, in Australia, the word "alien" refers to creatures from other planets, not people from other countries. I don't even know if "illegal alien" is a tautology—do you need to contrast them from "legal aliens"?

In my mind, the distinction between "Unauthorized immigrant" and "Unauthorized migrant" is the distinction between "moving to" and "moving". An unauthorised migrant might be accepted into the place they are moving to, but not have authority to leave the country they were born in, for example due to being required for military service (e.g. American draft dodgers migrating to Canada) or a totalitarian government might not want to lose its labour force.

In Australia, the term "illegal immigrant" is common, especially by the Government. The other common term is "asylum seeker" as many of the people who arrive here other than on scheduled flights are seeking to be recognised as refugees. There are also visa overstayers and fishermen who have violated the maritime boundaries. These are not normally seen as migrants, as they intend to go home without being caught. I can support "unauthorised immigrant" as a neutral term that refers to someone who does not have authority to permanently reside in the country they have entered. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is asylum seeker really used to refer to illegal immigrants? Asylum seeker has a fairly unambigious usage in my dialect of english, and it doesn't make one an illegal immigrant, or an immigrant of any kind. It merely means one is seeking to immigrate, under certain criteria. We wouldn't refer to someone who's applied for immigrant status but hasn't entered the country illegally as an illegal immigrant. WilyD 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess an individual could be either an "asylum seeker", an "illegal immigrant", or both. Most of the high-profile cases have involved people who might be both. See for example MV Tampa. The Australian government stands on the policy that a genuine refugee must seek asylum in the first safe haven country they enter. Therefore, anyone who has passed through another country such as Indonesia cannot claim to be a refugee on arrival in Australia. They are therefore tagged as illegal immigrants when they arrive in Australia. Many of them were encouraged to dispose of any documentation they had by the people smugglers who operated the boats that brought them into Australian waters (often to tiny uninhabited islands with no fresh water supply). This makes it very difficult for them to prove where they are from or why they require asylum anyway. Australia has very few "asylum seekers" who request asylum before they arrive. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is "asylum seeker" a consensus term in Australia? How about Britain, which I believe has a similar situation? Kalkin 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the asylum in the first safe country you get to policy is the standard policy of most countries. But uh, your point is well taken. Of course, in Canada, almost all the illegal immigrants (of which there aren't many) show up legally and just stay past the visa expiry date or what have you. There aren't a ton because almost every job above busker requires a social insurance numberl. WilyD 13:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Kalkin: I'm not sure what you mean by "consensus term", but I think the answer is yes. It generally means people who arrived in Australia unannounced and without previous authorisation. Most are placed in immigration detention either onshore or elsewhere until their identity and claims can be verified. See Pacific Solution for example. Some then receive refugee status, but many receive Temporary protection visas allowing them residence in Australia for only a few years, and others are deported. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

resolving this?

Anyone have some idea how to go about making an official policy out of this? We don't seem to have complete consensus and I doubt we'll get it, but maybe we should set up a straw poll if we want anything to happen? I'm hesitant about that because I'm afraid we'll get a bunch of votes which are based on pure politics, without even a consideration of the arguments we've all been discussing. What should we do? Kalkin 19:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• A straw poll won't really help at this point. There are a few problems with this proposed NC that should be addressed...
  • First and foremost, it needs more input from other parties. Try advertising it at the Village Pump or at relevant WikiProjects
  • Second, it is way too verbose. Try cutting it about in half to remove excess text and improve legibility.
  • Third, it suffers from systemic bias. Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia; this page should reflect other countries as well
  • And fourth, it is rather narrow for a naming convention so it may not in fact be necessary; perhaps you could point to some articles where it would help. If the point is just to avoid certain non-politically-correct terms, the community will likely reject it in any form.
• HTH. >Radiant< 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to boil this down to two options, "unauthorized immmigrant" and "illegal immigrant", respecting Radiant's advice, and moving the rest of the arguments to the talk page, and post it on the Village Pump. Kalkin 01:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Perspixx 05:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Objection. I think the two options should be "avoid "illegal immigrant"" and "use illegal immigrant", with no further prescription of an alternative term. RandomP 15:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Calling these people "immigrants" is deeply objectionable sleight of hand in the U.S.

In the U.S., this term is an attempt at equivocation between two vastly different categories of people. It is rooted in political bias and deception. It shouldn't be used. The people it is meant to refer to are not immigrants, in the U.S. As for other countries, I'd like to see some legal references to what terms are used in their governments for these people. We may be able to reach a consensus by looking at that. -Psychohistorian 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

yes of course they are immigrants. Even the most intense nativists call them that. Most of the Chinese who came to US 1880s-1940s did so "illegally" and we always call them immigrants. Rjensen 15:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"yes, of course they are immigrants" "Immigrant" is a legal category. Provide a reference by a body legally empowered to make, enforce, or interpret law which says they are. There is a reference already provided which says they aren't. This is still Wikipedia and you are still required to source your statements. I recommend that, since this is a legal issue, we should only consider alternatives which are used by bodies which make, enforce, and interpret law and that the legal term (from whichever country is being discussed) be properly referenced to such bodies before they fall under consideration as a possible option.-Psychohistorian 15:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"immigrant" is a common word for 200+ years and the dictionaries all agree on its meaning. Webster's 3rd defines immigrant as " a person that comes to a country for the purpose of permanent residence". That seems to fit pretty well. Encarta dictionary says "somebody settling in country: a newcomer to a country who has settled there". From England the Shorter OED says "A person who settles as a permanent resident in a different country. Also (esp. in Britain), a descendant of such a person. L18th century." Rjensen 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

None of those are empowered to provide intepretations of matters of law. It was only a few years ago that 'witch', 'negro', 'queer', and a number of other words had definitions in popular dictionaries whose POV is now obvious. Popular dictionaries are extremely POV and are not in any way reputable sources on complex issues (whether they be legal issues (such as this one) or otherwise). Dictionary definitions fall into the same category as unsigned encyclopedia articles. According to Wikipedia policy, "Note that unsigned Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta articles are written by staff, who may not be experts, and the articles may therefore not have the same level of credibility, but they are regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. When wikipedians have the ambition to write a better encyclopedia entry than those extant[3], it does not suffice to rely on the content of such tertiary sources." By the way, you're Australian, right? Can you provide a reference to the Australian legal definition of people who fall into an equivalent category to 'illegal alien'?

-Psychohistorian 16:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I only have time atm for a very quick cut and paste, so I pulled this from another discussion.

From the Third paragraph: According to the United States government an immigrant is “An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States.” An “immigrant” is thus defined by the government to only include persons legally residing in the United States. Consequently, 'illegal immigrant' is a contradiction in terms and a misnomer. The correct term is "illegal alien" or "undocumented alien". This statement is incorrect.

The USCIS(US Citizenship and Immigration Services) web site has 146 hits for the term “illegal immigrant”, as per Google ("illegal immigrant" site:http://www.uscis.gov/)

A search of US Supreme Court cases returns 34 citations for “illegal immigrant” (see: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/index.html)

The US Congress used the term “Illegal Immigration” in the title of the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996”, amongst other places.

Thus all three branches (Executive, Legislative, Judiciary) use the term “illegal immigrant” in addition to the term “illegal alien”.

Brimba 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Which of these other hits states, "'Illegal immigrant' is legally defined as.." or "'immigrant' is legally defined as.."? -Psychohistorian 16:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so we are all on the same page with regards to definitions.

According to the U.S. Government[2],

• An immigrant is, "An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a "green card" (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alien’s LPR status. LPR’s who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports." Check your dictionary, lawful (as in Lawful Permanent Resident) and illegal (as in illegal immigrant) are mutually incompatible.
• An illegal alien is, "Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable."-Psychohistorian 17:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. We cannot allow Wiki to be overwhelmed by the POV of an editor who does not understand Wiki's role or the English language. Psychohistorian is quoting IRS tax codes that are never even mentioned in the article nor are they relevant. Start with the English language--and any dictionary will do. Rjensen 20:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominems such as "an editor who does not understand Wiki's role or the English language" are not productive discourse on this topic. As per Wiki policy, focus discussion on the topic, not on other editors. Further, you provide no argument at all for anyone to accept your claim that official government definitions such as I linked to aren't relevant. As I said before, 'immigrant' is a legal category and, so, should be used according to government standards.-Psychohistorian 20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistorian, feel free to parse through the definition of immigrant at 8 USC 1101 for the U.S. legal definition of "immigrant" - it is a couple of pages long. You'll discover that the term "immigrant" includes all "aliens" (another defined term) except for people in the US under one of many special categories; I find no exclusion for anyone who is here illegally. That having been said, you'll also see in that definition the flaw in using a legal definition in a non-legal work; there are many people in different categories excluded from the definition of immigrant whom most of us, and most statisticians, historians, and, I suspect, other legal systems, would describe as immigrants (for example, those who are admitted to the US as children or spouses of US citizens. Likewise, there will be different legal definitions in different countries and states. (By the way, the legal cite you provided above isn't a citation to legal authority, but rather to a summary that the IRS prepared of their view of the INS rules -- the IRS has different concerns in defining terms, and this one doesn't matter to them (it has no impact on how people are taxed), so it's not got any very interesting or authoritative legal meaning.) Sam 22:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am parsing through it, though it will take some time. I find reference to trafficking, but I'm not through parsing the document yet. I see no flaw in sticking to legal definitions. It is irrelevant what common perceptions of the law is when discussing legal definitions, for example, you don't get to say, "but I thought heroin was legal, officer, honest!" As for different definitions in different countries, I acknowledge that. My point is that a common definition for Wikipedia for a legal term should be based on a composite of the law in the various countries.-Psychohistorian 23:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Using POV edits to attack immigrants

Wikipedia always depends on standard English language definitions of ordinary words like "immigrant." Psychohistorian rejects that policy and trieds to substitute a POV that is that is unacceptable in editing Wiki. He adds his own "original research" arguing that "immigrant" is not a common word in political discourse but instead a "legal term" based on the tax code. That is done for no other reason than to introduce one editor's personal POV into the discussion. Wiki is not a law book sanctioned by the courts and Psychohistorian is not a lawyer. Rjensen 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You say that's a policy (to depend on standard English language definitions of legal terms). Link to that policy. You're right that I'm not a lawyer, but neither are you. That's why, when using legal terms, we need to use definitions used by the government.-Psychohistorian 20:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a lawyer. See above for my take. In short, I agree with R. Jensen. Sam 22:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can call themselves anything on Wikipedia. -Psychohistorian 23:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that someone is lying? That's not a civil way to discss matters. -Will Beback 23:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If I thought someone was lying, Id say so. Im no more accussing someone of lying than you are accusing me of being uncivil. Im simply pointing out that claims to being an authority dont carry much weight. -Psychohistorian 00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you were talking about people being lawyers or not, the comment appears appropriate. As for the point, the U.S. Government does not legislate word usage. It's fine to say that particular terms are used in government documents, but that usage does not determine what terms we use in this encyclopedia. Likewise, the Feds may come up with their own definition of "terrorist", but we are not obliged to follow their definition. -Will Beback 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We can choose to redefine "felony", "misdemeaner", or any other legal term anyway we want to. If we do so, that's original research and POV. "Immigrant" is no different. It is a legal term, so we should use it as defined legally. You are attempting to use a POV based definition of "immigrant" and pass it off as if its not. Wikipedia needs to be based on reliable sources.-Psychohistorian 11:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the heading of this section is addressing a person rather than the subject and, so, is against guidelines. -Psychohistorian 11:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Immigrant" and "alien" are not legal terms like "felon". Rather they are general terms, like "adult", that also have meaning in the law. While the legal uses of the terms is relevant, they aren't the sole uses, nor are the legal definitions necessarily the same as the common definitions. Dictionaries are reliable sources for word usage. -Will Beback 11:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing which terms to use in an encyclopedia. Those terms are meant to be used in a wide range of articles and to be used consistently. Those terms need to fit the tightest definitions possible. To do anything less is to be confusing. The tightest definition is the legal definition. "Immigrant" and "alien" are legal terms because they are categories which carry legal rights and legal responsibilities. -Psychohistorian 11:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't use the "tightest" definitions possible, we use the most common definitions. The most commonly used phrase in the English language to describe these folks is "illegal immigrant". -Will Beback 12:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We use the most common definition when writing individual articles. Show me the policy which states that we use the most common definition when determining a standard for several articles. Also, show me where 'illegal immigrant' is the most common term globally. -Psychohistorian 12:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I tell you what, if you can get a consensus among the Wikipedia editors to adopt your position I'll cheerfully adopt it as well. However, until then, you appear to be in the minority. -Will Beback 12:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You want to take a straw poll on whether legal terms have legal rights and legal responsibilities associated with them? Okay. You want to have a straw poll on whether we should use a definition for a legal term based on a composite of what is used by legal authorities around the world? Okay. Personally, I think it'd be interesting to find out just how serious Wikipedia editors are about writing a legitimate encyclopedia or if they are more intent on finding a soap box (by making the kind of POV equivocations that you want to make).-Psychohistorian 13:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistorian, I see a clear consensus here, and would suggest that if you want to show what terms are common or not common or useful or not useful, that you go find your authorities to present. I gave you the citation above for a legal definition under U.S. immigration law. Please note that there is no such thing as a "composite" legal definitions - legal definitions are intended to be precise, and where there are significant differences it is usually because there are minority or majority views of a point and so two or more very different and often diametrically opposed definitions become common. It also can be because there are different uses (for example, legally the concept of "alien" is usually meant to be a jurisdictional concept, and this can lead to differing definitions for tax purposes, for example, than for immigration purposes, because jurisdictional concepts differ in the two areas). If you wish to do a legal survey, please feel free to do so, but please use actual legal authority rather than things like that IRS website, and please realize that you will not get to a "composite" definition but rather a collection of disparate and often disjunctive definitions that have precision applicable in different contexts. In the absence of some substantive work such as that from you, I believe the consensus is established. Sam 14:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The core question here is "by what criteria will we weigh the various options against one another in order to choose a standard"? There are three options.

1.) We may use original research (whether it be by consensus of everyone here or by a select few or one). I think we can all agree that that's a bad option, right? 2.) We can judge the relative terms based on what is most popular on a global scale (but, remember, noone has provided any source which has been agreed to be reliable on this matter and which lists words by their global popularity). 3.) We can create a composite definition based on legal definitions as used around the world. This is the option I favor. It won't be a simple "cut and paste", but it does give us a system not created by us by which we can use to work towards a standard. Those are the options as I see them. -Psychohistorian 14:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this whole article should be thrown out

It seems deeply biased in at least two major ways and has another flaw which I see as fundamental. 1.) It throws 'alien' out without giving it any consideration. All the options assume that 'immigrant' is the only valid choice, but the article never explains why. It just kinda seems to hope that it can pull off a sleight of hand and noone will notice. 2.) It assumes that there needs to be some sort of standard terminology set from on high and handed down to the rest of the wiki editors. That goes against the spirit of an open source encyclopedia. 3.) It assumes that open discussion is the way to create a standard - but open discussion on this issue would be just a bunch of people spouting their opinion - opinion is, at best, original research. It would be better for this article to address the question of what is a reliable source in the debate over what terms should be used. In short, the article is biased and seems to have been artificially created to steer it towards a certain outcome. I don't believe any degree of work will bring it towards neutrality. It should be deleted.-Psychohistorian 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Responding to point (1) only, without prejudice either way to the "throw it out" proposal: "Alien" may mean "a person from another pountry" in the USA, but to the rest of us, it refers to the characters in Close Encounters of the Third Kind and its ilk — beings from another planet. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? -Psychohistorian 11:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"major changes made without discussion"

According to Wikipedia policy, one should be bold in editing. There is no policy that I know of which requires discussion to be made before editing. There are guidelines which suggests that deleting content shouldn't be done unless the content violates policy. So, I'm restoring the reverted content. If you have an issue with that content, discuss it here before further reversions. -Psychohistorian 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article, it's a project page devoted to deciding how Wikiepdia editors should use nomenclature surrounding immigration. Being bold does not mean ignoring consensus. Guidelines require consensus. If the author of the material, or anyone else, would like to propose the changes first and seek consensus then I'd be happy to join in the conversation. But a newcomer who is sekeing to promote a website is not going to come in and change our guidelines without some attmept at a consensus. It isn't vandalism to revert such eidting, it's being responsible. -Will Beback 16:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

All articles are built using consensus and that consensus is achieved by everyone working together on the article - by allowing anyone to make edits to the article. Where is the policy which states that guidelines are created differently? Now, I'll give you that there was a sentence in the middle of his edits which does come across as promoting a website and that needs to be looked at a bit closer, but throwing out all of his content because of one sentence makes no sense. Frankly, without his edit, this 'guideline' is even more of a poorly disguised political piece then otherwise. While he doesn't bring it back to a neutral position, he brings it closer to one. Whether what you are doing is vandalism is something I'm not going to get into, but what you are doing is against Wiki guidelines (you can't just assume wiki guidelines don't apply whenever you don't want them to, you have to show why they don't apply - you haven't done that). -Psychohistorian 17:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You directly accused me of vandalism by reverting my reversion with the edit summary "rvv"[3]. And please show me what guideline says that one editor may make massive changes without comment, but that no other editor may remove them. If you'd like to make a change please discuss it here first. -Will Beback 17:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I thought "rvv" meant "revert the reversion". I misued the abbreviation and threw an accusation at you that I didn't intend.

"And please show me what guideline says that one editor may make massive changes without comment..", easy "be bold". As for the other one, I'll have to dig it up. -Psychohistorian 17:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Limited geographic scope?

This page reads like this is a US-specific issue, which of course it isn't. There really shouldn't be any discussion about whether "immigrant" as specific legal connotations in the US... unless otherwise stated, naming conventions should be as broadly applicable as possible. Guettarda 17:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but at the same time, it is not sufficient to just say "X is the most widely used term in country Y" unless we can provide a source for it. Everything needs to be sourced or else its original research and noone has presented a reliable source for what the most common terms are -globally-. Until and unless someone can do that, this article is just a mishmash of opinion and should be thrown out. -Psychohistorian 17:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, since this 'guideline' hasn't been created in a neutral or reasonable manner (since it doesn't even offer up for consideration 'alien' but just seems to brush it aside without reason), I plan on ignoring it anyway (a guideline which hasn't followed policy in being developed makes no sense to be followed).

So, you all can do whatever you want. I'm done. -Psychohistorian 18:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Guettarda 00:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

At least one recent High Court of Australia case, Al-Kateb v Godwin uses the term "unlawful non-citizen". I think I prefer "illegal immigrant" for common use (I have never heard someone say unlawfull non-citizen). --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That is the -first- time I've seen anyone on here actually use a reliable source that isn't from the US. Now, can you actually cite that source? See, the number one problem with this guideline is that it seems to be trying to set a standard based on pure opinion. We need -more- of these global citations from reliable sources and we need to get away from pure opinion.-Psychohistorian 11:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The transcripts of the case include [4] and [5]. The act itself contains the definition in section 14, as referred to by the interpretations section, section 5. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Now we have two terms which actually have legitimacy. They are "illegal alien" (the term used officially in the US) and "Unlawful non-citizens" (the term used officially in Australia). All the other terms listed as options in this guideline should be removed and these two terms should be the only options (as they are the only ones from reliable sources which have been provided). Other terms, of course, can be added when reliable sources can be cited for them. Personally, I'd table the question of which term to use until some time has gone by and noone has provided any more terms with reliable sources. I'd like it very much if you added the citations you just provided above to the guideline. -Psychohistorian 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a law book. We are not restricted to using the legal terms for any topic. In general, Wikipedia prefers the most commonly-used terms. Commonly-used terms should not be removed from the options. -Will Beback 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As soon as you can provide a reliable source which states, "this is the most commonly used term globally for illegal aliens", you'll have a point to make. As for removing commonly-used terms, the guideline already does that as a result of -your- efforts. Finally, where is the policy or guideline which states that Wikipedia prefers the most commonly-used terms? -Psychohistorian 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My only efforts in this proposal was to undo the unilateral changes of user:Illegalaliens.us. That one-time editor made no attempt to explain or justify his edits. The general guideline is at Wikipedia:Naming convention. I'm not sure why you demand that a term be used globally - it is sufficient to show that a term is commonly used in major English-speaking countries. -Will Beback 22:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your only effort has been to exclude "illegal alien" from the list of options and to do so by continuing what has become the standard practice in this guideline of ignoring sources and providing no source to support its exclusion. As for using the most common term in English-speaking countries, you need to provide a reliable source which states "term X is the most common term used to describe illegal aliens in English-speaking countries globally". As for making unilateral changes, every editor takes it upon himself/herself to make such changes. Its called "being bold" and it is supported by policy.-Psychohistorian 11:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I provided the references, but that doesn't mean "unlawful non-citizen" is commonly used - it never appears in newspapers. [6] I think the most common use here would be "illegal immigrant", followed by "boat people", but I'm not sure where to look for a reference that would satisfy you. Any hints? --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The real issue isn't what will satisfy me, but what will satisfy policy. We can't use original research and we need a reliable source for global usage. As for whether or not a reliable source can be found which states, "X is the most common term globally in English-speaking countries for illegal aliens", personally I don't think such a source will be found and, consequently, we need to either back up and use the law as our yardstick (as it prevents OR and NOR is sacrosanct) or just scrap this thing altogether. Sometimes the best guideline is no guideline at all. -Psychohistorian 14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reaching a conclusion, for better or worse

What is the process, or steps, that need to be taken to bring this proposal to a conclusion?

Positions seem to be pretty well spelled out at this point, and there appears to be little chance of any major shifts amongst editors. So where do we go from here? Brimba 04:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are voluntary. If you want it to be embraced, people have to want to embrace it. That means that the conclusion needs to be justified. That means that the guideline needs to be reached using policy. This guideline, at this point in time, doesn't do that. There are very few sources and absolutely no justification for any of the major options which doesn't boil down to opinion (and we can't base options on opinion - that would be original research). So, in other words, this thing masquerading as a 'guideline' is, at this point in time, nothing more than a political opinion piece. It is -far- from being ready to be accepted. To do that, we need options which are backed by citable reliable sources which focus on global usage and we need citable reliable sources as to -why- other options aren't used. -Psychohistorian 11:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there are a large number of sources. Please pay attention. [7] Kalkin 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who isn't paying attention. There is no statement in this article which states, "According to reliable source X, Y is the term used most globally by legal authorities and/or popular media to describe illegal aliens". I challenge you to find such a source in this article. -Psychohistorian 12:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, while all the sources which are provided (and, yes, there are sources which are provided, but none are provided in the options section) are of a national scope, some are flat out ignored among the options presented while others are given priority (not the source itself, just the content) and there is no justification as to why. If a source is to be ignored because it is of a national scope, then all sources which are of a national scope should be ignored, but that is not what we see here. -Psychohistorian 13:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Some mention has been made of the need to find a term which is globally acceptable. I don't believe that is necessary, or even possible. Immigration and related politics are national issues, and we should allow for discussions of immigration which take place within national contexts. Therefore, I do not see a problem with having an immigration page in Wikipedia which covers American issues, and other pages which cover the issues of those countries, using the language appropriate for each country.

Perhaps the thing to do is have a lead page with the title "immigration", which contains nothing but links to other pages which are dedicated to individual countries. The lead page would not be edittable, but links to new pages would automatically appear when someone creates a new page with the word "immigration" in the title. Is there such a facility available in Wikipedai to automatically create those links on a designated page? If not, would Wikipedia be willing to write the scripts necessary to put this in place? Could we ask them? --Infoholic 09:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

An alternative is to create a project page which connects all pages on this topic. Project pages have been quite useful in the past on other topics. What, then, do you call the project page? Illegal immigration? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychohistorian (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps simply "Immigration: Global Issues". There would be no reason to suggest any particular sub-topic. This would avoid the problem you seem to be suggesting, of having this same debate on language for the title of the project page. You have a good point. Infoholic 09:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Great way to avoid neutrality

Having a naming convention which enshrines the POV of one side in a battle, is a great way to bypass NPOV and go straight to bias. If, on the other hand, what we all are aiming at here, is to find a way in which contributors with conflicting viewpoints can cooperate to write a neutral article, we'll have to do something that seems harder but is actually simpler.

Do not attempt to find some "neutral viewpoint" - that is a contradiction in terms, and was specifically disclaimed when NPOV was first devised. Rather than trying to express some middle ground acceptable to both sides, describe the conflicting viewpoints.

Thus, use phrases like the following:

• called "undocumented immigrants" by X
• dubbed "illegal aliens" by Y

Fair enough? --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)