![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This
edit request to
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need this diff to be reverted please. User alleges that the clause "Several months later and in response to the courts determinations" is "unconfirmed" but the memo published by DHS rescinding the DACA expansions proves otherwise:
I have considered a number of factors, including the preliminary injunction in this matter, the ongoing litigation, the fact that DACA never took effect, and our new immigration enforcement priorities. After consulting with the Attorney General, and in the exercise of my discretion in establishing national immigration enforcement policies, I hereby rescind the November 20, 2014 memorandum.
I don't mind if the clause is changed to, "Several months later and after considering several factors, including a preliminary injunction issued by the courts,"
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
With the dramatic news today many of you are eager to edit the article. As an admin I added a brief note about the announcement, but clearly more could be said. I see many calls for the protection to be lowered. I have a question for you: if the protection is lowered, would you all agree to drop the "illegal vs. undocumented" war, not to make any edits to the article on that question for a few days? I think that is probably the only condition under which it is likely to be lifted.
In the meantime, I am open to reasonable requests to add necessary and uncontroversial material to the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The full protection has expired. I put on semi-protection for now. We'll see what Samsara has to say. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
And of course once the edit is made the IP addresses immediately show up to revert. Why the fug isn't this article under permanent semi-protection or pending changes? It is extremely unfair to regular editors to place an article under a 1RR restriction/DS and then leave it open for IP addresses to run wild on it. Also very stupid. Volunteer Marek 08:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like this diff to be reverted please. The user alleges that this is "some shit that some politicians allege" and to not "conflate research with partisan rhetoric." But this is neither, since it's the argument used by the plaintiffs in Texas v. United States which was admitted in court by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and which is sourced through the Council of Foreign Relations, a reliable source.
Here are some excerpts from the lawsuit filed, for @ Snooganssnoogans:'s convenience:
Page 24: The Plaintiff States will be forced to expend substantial resources on law enforcement, healthcare, and education.
Page 25: Other costs follow specifically from the extension of deferred action status. For instance, federal work authorization functions as a precondition for certain professional licenses in the Plaintiff States.
As this text is neither "some shit that some politicians allege" nor "partisan rhetoric" as the user alleges, the text must be reincorporated in the article.
This request is made per the WP:1RR rule that governs this article.
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 22:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
In the introduction, the claim that "economists agree that there are no adverse effects of DACA on the US economy" is false. This needs to be corrected, and I hope someone in the community (not prevented 'by the lock') will take this up. The false claim is in the introduction. Numerous studies demonstrate that, like with many other elements, reduced shortage of labor supply (spurred by more undocumented workers and/or by legalized formally illegal/undocumented workers (i.e. DACA) can lower production costs, helping wealthy business owners and immigrants, but there is an equally pernicious depressing effect on low-income and low-skilled wages for extant citizens in the US. Some even suggest that this preferentially undermines Hispanic and Black citizen wages. Also, the elasticity of capital supply and substitution among inputs of production play a decisive factor in how and to whom the costs and benefits of immigration employment (and legalization of existing illegal/undocumented labor force members (DACA)) accrue/fall. You can't factually claim that there are no adverse economic effects of DACA on the US economy. It is patently false. There may be benefits, but it is not the case that there are no adverse economic effects.
https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/IZA2013.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4902:6153:8483:DB0C:9677:AE18 ( talk) 20:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need this diff to be reverted please. User alleges that the clause "is simply not true and not in accord with the rest of the article. DACA itself was not rescinded "a few months after its establishment". It is not rescinded now although a deadline has been set as explained in the next paragraph." But this is false and the memo published by DHS rescinding DACA proves otherwise:
I hereby rescind the June 15, 2012 memorandum.
This statement in effect rescinded DACA. What the user alleges are simply additional orders given by the DHS Secretary but DACA is rescinded.
Furthermore, since it seems the user misread the clause, I suggest to use the following clause instead: "Several months after its establishment DACA was challenged in courts and rescinded."
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: please stop reverting this information and familiarize yourself with the memorandum that rescinded DACA. Yes, the DHS Secretary proclaimed several additional provisions but DACA is officially rescinded. — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Ahnoneemoos: Let's talk this out, as we are supposed to. You went ahead and added a version of this sentence of yours anyhow, in spite of our discussion here. Two sentences in fact, added to the first paragraph of the lede. Your edit summary was "rewriting lead; moving most important concepts to the front." You added
The policy was established by the Obama administration in June 2012 in order to provide prosecutorial discretion to federal agencies with limited resources. Several years later, however, the Trump administration rescinded the policy after taking into consideration two court rulings, a litigation against it, and a letter from the attorney general.[1]
I replaced the vague "several years later" with "in 2017", and I removed the "taking into consideration" stuff. My edit summary was "removing vague "several years"; removing justifications (litigation was only threatened; letter from the attorney general is still part of the Trump administration)"
You then tagged it {{why?}}, saying "why is it OK to justify the establishment of the policy but not the rescission? there is a reason why the Trump administration rescinded the policy and it's explicitly explained in the memo but several users continue to remove this text." Well, in the first place, you were the one who added a justification for the establishment of the policy; IMO it is feeble, and it offers a reason that is nowhere found in the article text, and I would suggest we remove it as well. And in the second place, your choice of justifications for rescission was poor, as I explained in my edit summary. And in the third place, the justifications both for instituting the policy and rescinding it are explained in detail in the text, and that's where that kind of detail belongs - not the lede. So I propose removing the justifications both FOR the policy and AGAINST the policy from the lede paragraph. I would suggest we simply make the last sentence of the first paragraph read "The policy was established by the Obama administration in June 2012 and rescinded by the Trump administration in September 2017." There is additional information about the attempted expansion, lawsuits, and rescission in the next paragraph of the lede, and details in the text. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
This section is for other people to comment on the question of whether the lede should summarize reasons for the enactment of the DACA policy and its rescission. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"There are no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment." LIES: everyone knows many studies have been done showing a huge cost to denizens (those born in usa who's families had huge tax investment by "paying it forward" for many decades - these areas being turned to wholey debt driven and in debt practically over night - billions or trillions nation wide SIMPLY VANISHED). WIKIPEDIA ADMINS OWE ME AN APOLOGY for attacking my science articles (which i can still and will argue are without error) while promoting absolute POLITICAL lies articles. In my area, a haven for illegals: these people nearly killed me quite intently, had me jailed for a time without a trial politically, and have racial hiring practices hiring ONLY ILLEGALS (immediately given green cards) because they always vote democrat (the sitting politicians would be in jail a long time if Republicans ever got the podium during their lifetime). I'll state again: illegals have taken over complete job sectors (are infact in gov positions that "do the hiring"), and as a result complete sectors of government are racially controlled by illegals. Lastly: USA presidents are not Kings: they have absolutely no legal ability to announce a policy then announce there will be weapons pointed at anyone not implementing his own policy - especially when the policy steals taxes from others. (it's basically a tax evasion issue - but also a voting fraud issue) |
I think we need automatic archiving for this article. We have threads going back years. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Remind me to add this Science study when the page is no longer locked: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/08/30/science.aan5893 Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
00:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Amazing this is best proof yet that this topic is completely one side to the pro.everyone on of the "sources" are democratic or soros funded.in at least one case very openly pushing pro side how about that it will american taxpayers 750 billion dollars [1] or likely costs to tax payers would be $6.2 billion a year in education expense alone. [2]on last one written all the way back in 2004 they knew it would be pricey.Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget [3] 6thstreetfisherman ( talk) 06:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I simply am inquiring to change some of the sentences to be rid of grammatical error, particularly in the punctuation. 73.51.104.37 ( talk) 01:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I feel like this page would benefit from the clarification that this is an executive order. 50.24.202.114 ( talk) 02:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's a place to discuss the frequent back-and-forth changes between "illegal aliens" and "undocumented workers." Joyous! | Talk 18:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
References
Note: A proposal to use "undocumented" instead of the more accurate illegal was voted down at NPOV Notice Board — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.144.47 ( talk) 16:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Only far-left extremists and those who support illegal immigration say "undocumented immigrants" or "immigrants without documentation." Those are bizarre and nonsensical euphemisms used by the far-left fringe, such as Mexican supremacists and Democrats, in order justify their breaking the law and demographic engineering to ensure electoral domination. "Illegal immigrants" is the established, mainstream term used in newspapers such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Associated Press; and "illegal aliens" is the established legal term. -- 36.67.86.253 ( talk) 01:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Iam always confused every time this topic comes up there is large debate what there called title 8 clear defines it they are illegal aliens that is the proper legal term for someone that crosses the border at a place other than a us checkpoint [1]. I see a bunch of emotional arguments and people that want to down play the hole debate i will state my feelings on the article below but the simple point is a fact is a fact someone already made a legal definition for the person and that is what should be follow to keep topic neutral 6thstreetfisherman ( talk) 06:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Everybody is arguing about extending, renewing, or replacing the law establishing legal status of the minors who arrived illegally before June 15, 2012. Is there a move to extend the DACA arrival date to include minors who have arrived illegally after the original DACA parameters? Or, are there moves to introduce a new law (DACA 2?) to apply to those who have arrived illegally after the original date parameters set by Pres. Obama? Pete unseth ( talk) 23:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Most of paragraph 3 is a repeat of info already in Section Impact, so why is it here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.82.194 ( talk) 15:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
"The 2015 GAO report said perceptions of U.S. immigration policy played a part, specifically because some believed that prospects for a broad overhaul of U.S. immigration laws would include a path to citizenship for those already in the country. " Which would include DACA, even if it isn't specifically specified. Rendering this, "did not mention DACA", misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.82.194 ( talk) 16:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The synopsis at the top of the page is currently written using the past tense, while much of the body is written using the present tense. These should be unified. 152.16.191.114 ( talk) 16:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Not only does this statement read like a position paper, it is supported by some dead links. "There are no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment while most economists say that DACA benefits the U.S. economy.[10][11][12][13] "
→ I added an NPOV tag to this section. My attempts to address these issues continue to be reverted by an overly aggressive and biased editor. Smit8678 ( talk) 16:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, not confident editing a citation on my own. Citation # 11 is a dead link, however I found the article directly on the AP's website (the original link was New York Times republication of an AP article): https://apnews.com/70d54a71362e4d90ad1959c8d33266ac 100.40.110.170 ( talk) 16:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
1.) In the Introduction of the article's last paragraph's first three sentences and last sentence use statistics in support of the program. These sentences are unnecessary as the exact same statistics are used later in the article. I would like to take out theses sentences because they repeat statistics given in under the "Impact" section.
2.) The last paragraph in the "Establishment" section is repeated almost word for word further down in the "Expansion" section. Therefore the paragraph in the "Establishment" section should be deleted so that the article isn't repeating the same information. That being said the sentence in the "Expansion" section in the beginning of the second paragraph: "However, in December 2014,Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (a similar program)." has a subtle political bias. The phrase, "all with Republican governors" adds an unnecessary political dimension to the sentence which serves to portray the Republican party in a negative way. If you remove the phrase from the sentence it makes it politically neutral while still maintaining the original idea of the sentence.
3.) In the "Reaction" section of the article the last sentence is a bit confusing and unnecessary given that Mitt Romney ran for President fives years ago. It should be given greater context as to why it is in this section (for example add that it was one of his campaign points or promises during his run for office) or it should be removed completely from the article.
4.) Citation number thirteen is cited four times throughout the article however, the actual citation was never defined in the citation section. I will delete the sentences using citation thirteen if they are not accompanied by any other citation. TM6031 ( talk) 07:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
5.) I would recommend reviewing the last part of the introduction. While the initial paragraphs present a history of the program, the last paragraph presents as advocacy for the program itself. There are definite attempts to present DACA in an explicitly favorable light (i.e., selectively presenting favorable statistics to create an availability heuristic) rather than sticking solely to a description of the program and its history. I have attempted to remove the overt bias language to present a more objective presentation; however an overly aggressive editor continues to revert the editing changes. Smit8678 ( talk) 16:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I realise that this issue has already been raised, and being inexperienced at posting comments on Wikipedia articles, I apologise in advance for any transgression of Wikipedia conventions. I do however feel that Paragraph 3 represents a subjective POV and attempts to influence the reader towards a certain viewpoint. As such, it should not be included on the page. It discusses rather than informing; does not present a neutral standpoint, and does not add anything to the article. All sentences start with (e.g.) : ...Research shows that, ...Studies have shown that, ...There are no known major adverse impacts, ...most economists say that, and ...There is no evidence that.
These are all attempts to present a particular standpoint as being proven, correct, reasonable and relevant, when they are only in fact representing a biased POV.
As far as I can see, there is no reason for any part of the paragraph from: There is no evidence that... to ...within the United States to be included in this article. -- Pdadme ( talk)
"There is no evidence that DACA-eligible individuals are more likely to commit crimes than any other person within the United States"
This sentence is based on statistical facts, but, because of the grammar used, it is a complete lie.
I will explain.
For the purpose of explanation, let us presume that: 1 those within the DACA group can be ascribed a 1 percent probability of committing a crime. 2 The non-DACA group has a 2 percent probability.
The phrase "Any other person" means that a newborn baby in an incubator who is in a coma has just as much or more of a likelihood of committing a crime as a DACA person.
Whatever your political ideology, this is far from Wiki level of quality.
Also, keep in mind that technically ALL DACA persons were 100 percent likely to commit a crime, because none of them were here legally before they registered for the DACA program.
Please keep in mind that this comment is not denying the MEANING of the article, it is stating only that because of poor grammar you all look like idiots. Sorry.
And no one can correct the grammar because page is locked.
Please keep up the quality level of Wiki - it is the best and most reliable source of information in the world (opinion statement - no reference given) Romney
"There is no evidence that there is higher criminality incidence among the group of DACA registered individuals than among the general population of the United States of America."
("United States" may also refer to the United States of Mexico, which has different crime statistics.)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This
edit request to
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need this diff to be reverted please. User alleges that the clause "Several months later and in response to the courts determinations" is "unconfirmed" but the memo published by DHS rescinding the DACA expansions proves otherwise:
I have considered a number of factors, including the preliminary injunction in this matter, the ongoing litigation, the fact that DACA never took effect, and our new immigration enforcement priorities. After consulting with the Attorney General, and in the exercise of my discretion in establishing national immigration enforcement policies, I hereby rescind the November 20, 2014 memorandum.
I don't mind if the clause is changed to, "Several months later and after considering several factors, including a preliminary injunction issued by the courts,"
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
With the dramatic news today many of you are eager to edit the article. As an admin I added a brief note about the announcement, but clearly more could be said. I see many calls for the protection to be lowered. I have a question for you: if the protection is lowered, would you all agree to drop the "illegal vs. undocumented" war, not to make any edits to the article on that question for a few days? I think that is probably the only condition under which it is likely to be lifted.
In the meantime, I am open to reasonable requests to add necessary and uncontroversial material to the article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The full protection has expired. I put on semi-protection for now. We'll see what Samsara has to say. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
And of course once the edit is made the IP addresses immediately show up to revert. Why the fug isn't this article under permanent semi-protection or pending changes? It is extremely unfair to regular editors to place an article under a 1RR restriction/DS and then leave it open for IP addresses to run wild on it. Also very stupid. Volunteer Marek 08:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like this diff to be reverted please. The user alleges that this is "some shit that some politicians allege" and to not "conflate research with partisan rhetoric." But this is neither, since it's the argument used by the plaintiffs in Texas v. United States which was admitted in court by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and which is sourced through the Council of Foreign Relations, a reliable source.
Here are some excerpts from the lawsuit filed, for @ Snooganssnoogans:'s convenience:
Page 24: The Plaintiff States will be forced to expend substantial resources on law enforcement, healthcare, and education.
Page 25: Other costs follow specifically from the extension of deferred action status. For instance, federal work authorization functions as a precondition for certain professional licenses in the Plaintiff States.
As this text is neither "some shit that some politicians allege" nor "partisan rhetoric" as the user alleges, the text must be reincorporated in the article.
This request is made per the WP:1RR rule that governs this article.
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 22:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
In the introduction, the claim that "economists agree that there are no adverse effects of DACA on the US economy" is false. This needs to be corrected, and I hope someone in the community (not prevented 'by the lock') will take this up. The false claim is in the introduction. Numerous studies demonstrate that, like with many other elements, reduced shortage of labor supply (spurred by more undocumented workers and/or by legalized formally illegal/undocumented workers (i.e. DACA) can lower production costs, helping wealthy business owners and immigrants, but there is an equally pernicious depressing effect on low-income and low-skilled wages for extant citizens in the US. Some even suggest that this preferentially undermines Hispanic and Black citizen wages. Also, the elasticity of capital supply and substitution among inputs of production play a decisive factor in how and to whom the costs and benefits of immigration employment (and legalization of existing illegal/undocumented labor force members (DACA)) accrue/fall. You can't factually claim that there are no adverse economic effects of DACA on the US economy. It is patently false. There may be benefits, but it is not the case that there are no adverse economic effects.
https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/IZA2013.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4902:6153:8483:DB0C:9677:AE18 ( talk) 20:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need this diff to be reverted please. User alleges that the clause "is simply not true and not in accord with the rest of the article. DACA itself was not rescinded "a few months after its establishment". It is not rescinded now although a deadline has been set as explained in the next paragraph." But this is false and the memo published by DHS rescinding DACA proves otherwise:
I hereby rescind the June 15, 2012 memorandum.
This statement in effect rescinded DACA. What the user alleges are simply additional orders given by the DHS Secretary but DACA is rescinded.
Furthermore, since it seems the user misread the clause, I suggest to use the following clause instead: "Several months after its establishment DACA was challenged in courts and rescinded."
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@ MelanieN: please stop reverting this information and familiarize yourself with the memorandum that rescinded DACA. Yes, the DHS Secretary proclaimed several additional provisions but DACA is officially rescinded. — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Ahnoneemoos: Let's talk this out, as we are supposed to. You went ahead and added a version of this sentence of yours anyhow, in spite of our discussion here. Two sentences in fact, added to the first paragraph of the lede. Your edit summary was "rewriting lead; moving most important concepts to the front." You added
The policy was established by the Obama administration in June 2012 in order to provide prosecutorial discretion to federal agencies with limited resources. Several years later, however, the Trump administration rescinded the policy after taking into consideration two court rulings, a litigation against it, and a letter from the attorney general.[1]
I replaced the vague "several years later" with "in 2017", and I removed the "taking into consideration" stuff. My edit summary was "removing vague "several years"; removing justifications (litigation was only threatened; letter from the attorney general is still part of the Trump administration)"
You then tagged it {{why?}}, saying "why is it OK to justify the establishment of the policy but not the rescission? there is a reason why the Trump administration rescinded the policy and it's explicitly explained in the memo but several users continue to remove this text." Well, in the first place, you were the one who added a justification for the establishment of the policy; IMO it is feeble, and it offers a reason that is nowhere found in the article text, and I would suggest we remove it as well. And in the second place, your choice of justifications for rescission was poor, as I explained in my edit summary. And in the third place, the justifications both for instituting the policy and rescinding it are explained in detail in the text, and that's where that kind of detail belongs - not the lede. So I propose removing the justifications both FOR the policy and AGAINST the policy from the lede paragraph. I would suggest we simply make the last sentence of the first paragraph read "The policy was established by the Obama administration in June 2012 and rescinded by the Trump administration in September 2017." There is additional information about the attempted expansion, lawsuits, and rescission in the next paragraph of the lede, and details in the text. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
This section is for other people to comment on the question of whether the lede should summarize reasons for the enactment of the DACA policy and its rescission. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"There are no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment." LIES: everyone knows many studies have been done showing a huge cost to denizens (those born in usa who's families had huge tax investment by "paying it forward" for many decades - these areas being turned to wholey debt driven and in debt practically over night - billions or trillions nation wide SIMPLY VANISHED). WIKIPEDIA ADMINS OWE ME AN APOLOGY for attacking my science articles (which i can still and will argue are without error) while promoting absolute POLITICAL lies articles. In my area, a haven for illegals: these people nearly killed me quite intently, had me jailed for a time without a trial politically, and have racial hiring practices hiring ONLY ILLEGALS (immediately given green cards) because they always vote democrat (the sitting politicians would be in jail a long time if Republicans ever got the podium during their lifetime). I'll state again: illegals have taken over complete job sectors (are infact in gov positions that "do the hiring"), and as a result complete sectors of government are racially controlled by illegals. Lastly: USA presidents are not Kings: they have absolutely no legal ability to announce a policy then announce there will be weapons pointed at anyone not implementing his own policy - especially when the policy steals taxes from others. (it's basically a tax evasion issue - but also a voting fraud issue) |
I think we need automatic archiving for this article. We have threads going back years. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Remind me to add this Science study when the page is no longer locked: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/08/30/science.aan5893 Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
00:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Amazing this is best proof yet that this topic is completely one side to the pro.everyone on of the "sources" are democratic or soros funded.in at least one case very openly pushing pro side how about that it will american taxpayers 750 billion dollars [1] or likely costs to tax payers would be $6.2 billion a year in education expense alone. [2]on last one written all the way back in 2004 they knew it would be pricey.Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget [3] 6thstreetfisherman ( talk) 06:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I simply am inquiring to change some of the sentences to be rid of grammatical error, particularly in the punctuation. 73.51.104.37 ( talk) 01:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I feel like this page would benefit from the clarification that this is an executive order. 50.24.202.114 ( talk) 02:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's a place to discuss the frequent back-and-forth changes between "illegal aliens" and "undocumented workers." Joyous! | Talk 18:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
References
Note: A proposal to use "undocumented" instead of the more accurate illegal was voted down at NPOV Notice Board — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.144.47 ( talk) 16:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Only far-left extremists and those who support illegal immigration say "undocumented immigrants" or "immigrants without documentation." Those are bizarre and nonsensical euphemisms used by the far-left fringe, such as Mexican supremacists and Democrats, in order justify their breaking the law and demographic engineering to ensure electoral domination. "Illegal immigrants" is the established, mainstream term used in newspapers such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Associated Press; and "illegal aliens" is the established legal term. -- 36.67.86.253 ( talk) 01:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Iam always confused every time this topic comes up there is large debate what there called title 8 clear defines it they are illegal aliens that is the proper legal term for someone that crosses the border at a place other than a us checkpoint [1]. I see a bunch of emotional arguments and people that want to down play the hole debate i will state my feelings on the article below but the simple point is a fact is a fact someone already made a legal definition for the person and that is what should be follow to keep topic neutral 6thstreetfisherman ( talk) 06:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Everybody is arguing about extending, renewing, or replacing the law establishing legal status of the minors who arrived illegally before June 15, 2012. Is there a move to extend the DACA arrival date to include minors who have arrived illegally after the original DACA parameters? Or, are there moves to introduce a new law (DACA 2?) to apply to those who have arrived illegally after the original date parameters set by Pres. Obama? Pete unseth ( talk) 23:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Most of paragraph 3 is a repeat of info already in Section Impact, so why is it here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.82.194 ( talk) 15:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
"The 2015 GAO report said perceptions of U.S. immigration policy played a part, specifically because some believed that prospects for a broad overhaul of U.S. immigration laws would include a path to citizenship for those already in the country. " Which would include DACA, even if it isn't specifically specified. Rendering this, "did not mention DACA", misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.82.194 ( talk) 16:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The synopsis at the top of the page is currently written using the past tense, while much of the body is written using the present tense. These should be unified. 152.16.191.114 ( talk) 16:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Not only does this statement read like a position paper, it is supported by some dead links. "There are no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment while most economists say that DACA benefits the U.S. economy.[10][11][12][13] "
→ I added an NPOV tag to this section. My attempts to address these issues continue to be reverted by an overly aggressive and biased editor. Smit8678 ( talk) 16:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, not confident editing a citation on my own. Citation # 11 is a dead link, however I found the article directly on the AP's website (the original link was New York Times republication of an AP article): https://apnews.com/70d54a71362e4d90ad1959c8d33266ac 100.40.110.170 ( talk) 16:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
1.) In the Introduction of the article's last paragraph's first three sentences and last sentence use statistics in support of the program. These sentences are unnecessary as the exact same statistics are used later in the article. I would like to take out theses sentences because they repeat statistics given in under the "Impact" section.
2.) The last paragraph in the "Establishment" section is repeated almost word for word further down in the "Expansion" section. Therefore the paragraph in the "Establishment" section should be deleted so that the article isn't repeating the same information. That being said the sentence in the "Expansion" section in the beginning of the second paragraph: "However, in December 2014,Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (a similar program)." has a subtle political bias. The phrase, "all with Republican governors" adds an unnecessary political dimension to the sentence which serves to portray the Republican party in a negative way. If you remove the phrase from the sentence it makes it politically neutral while still maintaining the original idea of the sentence.
3.) In the "Reaction" section of the article the last sentence is a bit confusing and unnecessary given that Mitt Romney ran for President fives years ago. It should be given greater context as to why it is in this section (for example add that it was one of his campaign points or promises during his run for office) or it should be removed completely from the article.
4.) Citation number thirteen is cited four times throughout the article however, the actual citation was never defined in the citation section. I will delete the sentences using citation thirteen if they are not accompanied by any other citation. TM6031 ( talk) 07:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
5.) I would recommend reviewing the last part of the introduction. While the initial paragraphs present a history of the program, the last paragraph presents as advocacy for the program itself. There are definite attempts to present DACA in an explicitly favorable light (i.e., selectively presenting favorable statistics to create an availability heuristic) rather than sticking solely to a description of the program and its history. I have attempted to remove the overt bias language to present a more objective presentation; however an overly aggressive editor continues to revert the editing changes. Smit8678 ( talk) 16:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I realise that this issue has already been raised, and being inexperienced at posting comments on Wikipedia articles, I apologise in advance for any transgression of Wikipedia conventions. I do however feel that Paragraph 3 represents a subjective POV and attempts to influence the reader towards a certain viewpoint. As such, it should not be included on the page. It discusses rather than informing; does not present a neutral standpoint, and does not add anything to the article. All sentences start with (e.g.) : ...Research shows that, ...Studies have shown that, ...There are no known major adverse impacts, ...most economists say that, and ...There is no evidence that.
These are all attempts to present a particular standpoint as being proven, correct, reasonable and relevant, when they are only in fact representing a biased POV.
As far as I can see, there is no reason for any part of the paragraph from: There is no evidence that... to ...within the United States to be included in this article. -- Pdadme ( talk)
"There is no evidence that DACA-eligible individuals are more likely to commit crimes than any other person within the United States"
This sentence is based on statistical facts, but, because of the grammar used, it is a complete lie.
I will explain.
For the purpose of explanation, let us presume that: 1 those within the DACA group can be ascribed a 1 percent probability of committing a crime. 2 The non-DACA group has a 2 percent probability.
The phrase "Any other person" means that a newborn baby in an incubator who is in a coma has just as much or more of a likelihood of committing a crime as a DACA person.
Whatever your political ideology, this is far from Wiki level of quality.
Also, keep in mind that technically ALL DACA persons were 100 percent likely to commit a crime, because none of them were here legally before they registered for the DACA program.
Please keep in mind that this comment is not denying the MEANING of the article, it is stating only that because of poor grammar you all look like idiots. Sorry.
And no one can correct the grammar because page is locked.
Please keep up the quality level of Wiki - it is the best and most reliable source of information in the world (opinion statement - no reference given) Romney
"There is no evidence that there is higher criminality incidence among the group of DACA registered individuals than among the general population of the United States of America."
("United States" may also refer to the United States of Mexico, which has different crime statistics.)