This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This has a lot of incorrect information. Many pieces of information are unsources, and some are outright incorrect. One article regarding the walkout in Las Vegas said that the grand majority of businesses suffered no impact, but this Wiki page stated they did. This part especially should be improved. Panfakes 13:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The following information is found on second link ( "The American Flag Comes Second" by Michelle Malkin, posted March 29, 2006 01:15 AM. Both accessed April 14, 2006.)
that references the photos information:
My name is Barry Schwartz, Activities Director at Montebello High School. I would like to correct the information on your web site. The students that took done the American flag and put up the Mexican flag were NOT from Montebello High School…they were from El Rancho High School (Pico Rivera) and from the Whittier area high schools (app. 800- 1000 students were involved). Our students were in class at this time. If it weren’t for these students, our students were not have left school...Our school is getting a bad rap…the Administration, Staff, and students do not condone this action. Dreday13 18:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Like its companion H.R. 4437, I believe that this is a good topic idea. However, it likewise needs significant editing.
I'd be happy to work on it when I have time. But I hope that a more experienced Wikipedian takes an interest and starts editing before then. - Scottwiki 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article needs some editing to make the sections more organized and coherent. This is an important topic that should be addressed in a cogent and accurate manner. Chushimp26 ( talk) 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
As I'm unaware how to read this correctly, I thought I'd leave it to people who aren't getting the news from the Wikipedia. However:
That reads that 50k people rallied for both causes at once (as though they cannot choose). I somehow doubt that's what is meant.
Should this article be called "2006 immigration protests", "2006 illegal immigration protests" as it's currently been renamed, or something else? - Scottwiki 06:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Lets leave it as is for now. Its a current event dealing with illegal immigration, so most people searching the site for info the protest will imput something similar to the article name. When the legislation is passed we can do one of two things: consider moving the article to a more apropreite title, or merge it with a larger article. It all depends on public reaction. TomStar81 06:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I support the new name "2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests". This accurately captures what the protesters claim to seek (immigrant rights), which goes beyond the instigating legislation. -- Krubo 15:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Outnumber by 2/3rds majority. Very well, move it to where ever you think it best. I wont argue. TomStar81 20:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Ahould ne called illegal immigration protest to be completely factual.
I believe we are doing a disservice to all legal immigrants if we don't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
It's important to remember that the protests were in response to HR4437, which would have criminalized those that provided humanitarian services to undocumented immigrants, and would have criminalized undocumented immigrants (this has more to do with the distinction between civil and criminal federal legal jurisprudence). As a legal point, illegal or undocumented immigrants are not technically criminals. As an aside, pledase note that there is a lively debate about whether immigrants without papers should be referred to as illegal, undocumented or otherwise. Finally, the marches were also taking place at a time when immigrant activists were pressing from comprehensive immigration reform legislation that did specifically address the needs of both legal and undocumented immigrants, and other issues and concerns with regard to the immigration system. Finally, the marches themselves reflected a remarkable burst of activity but were themselves part of a longer tradition of immigrant rights marches. So I'd strongly recommend keeping the name 2006 United States Immigration Reform Protests or 2006 Immigrant Rights Protests. I'm happy to provide further documentation if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.117.227 ( talk) 01:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The policy on Wikipedia is that statements in articles should be supported by reliable sources. At the moment, there are several statements, a grab bag of external links, but little connection between the two. - Scottwiki 07:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The links on sources 7, 8, 10, 13, and 15 are broken. 168.213.7.58 12:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that alot of linked sources aren't available anymore. The ones I tried were #12, 13, 14, 18. Not sure if the'yre supposed to be removed or links changed? Dandan 03:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Over 60 events (around 3 million people) have protested so far.
3/7 D.C. 20,000 3/8 Atlanta 100 in city hall 3/10 Chicago 300,000 3/11 Tampa “several hundred” 3/14 Topeka KS “several hundred” 3/17 Santa Cruz 500 3/20 Trenton 1,200 3/22 Providence 200 3/23 Milwaukee 30,000 3/23 Racine WI
3/24 FRIDAY
campuses and at least one highschool, students climbed the gate after administrators declared a lockdown
students)
3/25 Saturday
estimates for, including Boise, Knoxville, and Reno
3/26 Sunday Columbus 4-7,000 L.A. 2,000 NYC/Washington Heights: 500
3/27 MONDAY San Francisco: 5,000? (hunger strike ends; march joins up with the March for Peace/Peregrinacion por la Paz from Tijuana) Santa Ana:700 rally while 200+ riot cops invade their neighborhood Watsonville march Detroit & Grand Rapids: over 50,000 Boston 2,000 Columbus ? D.C. 1,500 + 100 clergy Denver: strategy meeting, 200, mostly latin@ & some union organizers ending with work groups Louisville KY 3,000
WALKOUTS: L.A. 25-40, 000 (LA daily news) highschool walk out, blocking freeways, encircle city hall, from 52 high and middle schools Orange county highschoolers take over the Riverside Freeway Sacramento: 70 Fresno: over 500 San diego: 1,000+ Santa ana: morning, high school students shut down treasuer/tax collection office Phoenix: 400 walk out, march to capitol Farmersville (central Valley CA) 200 Also thousands of walkouts in Aptos, Hollister and Salinas.
3/28 Tuesday, ALL WALKOUTS L.A. 6,000 walkout from 25 schools Long beach: 400 San diego 3,000 walk out, rallies at chicano park, campuses Watsonville 1,000 Houston TX 1,000 Dallas 3,300 walk out & rally at city hall Springdale, Arkansas: 36 highschoolers Phoenix hundreds walk out, march to capitol again Farmersville walkouts day 2 Northern Virginia: 250 highschoolers, 8 middle schoolers
The forms in which numbers appear on this article needs to have a flow to it. For example, either express word notation (ex. seven-thousand) or express number notation (ex. 7,000). This is just for future reference for anybody who wants to edit and update this article. It may also recquire some clean-up. -- EMC 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
What connection should this article have to United States immigration debate and H.R. 4437? My feeling is that all text concerning legislation should be combined, especially if and when one of the bills is enacted. The debate and protests should also be merged into one article, since the protests lack much meaning without the substance behind them. An all-encompassing article would be reasonable, since the bills, the debate, and the protests are all closely linked. Why make the reader jump from one article to two others, when a single article can tell the whole story? - Scottwiki 01:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Some countries such as Luxembourg, Japan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia do not usually accept immigrants. While the United States does, it takes decades for people to become citizens at the present. I know many people who have been legal residents since the early 1990s and now they don't even have a green card . 66.81.192.88 05:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
and was the first piece of legislation passed by a house of Congress in the United States immigration debate.
The term "Undocumented Immigrant" appears in the introductory paragraph. I think this constituts a violation in our NPOV policy. Ive changed it for the time being.
P.S. Wow, someone beat me to it! Anyway, we should probably decided on a policy regarding the term anyway Keeperoftheseal 15:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Entering the country illegaly is a criminal offense. Being in the country without documentation is only a civil offense punishable by deportation. [user:Qwints]
The biggest difference between the legal terms (at least in the context of immigration)"illegal" and "undocumented" is mostly that the term "illegal" has negative connotations attached to it... Therefore, if we want the article to be NPOV we would use the word without the negative connotations so that the reader would decide for themselves, right? Otherwise the readers would be biased against the immigrants from the first couple of sentences... 206.15.236.254 16:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Calling an immigrant "undocumented" implies that they simply don't have their paper work yet. As if the whole issue is a technicality and they are just waiting for a rubber stamp. However, it's not a technicality. If you're in this country, and you're neither a citizen nor part of some kind of temporary stay program, then you're here "illegally". You're not just "undocumented". You wouldn't call someone without a driver’s license, an "undocumented" driver. If they drive a car, they are doing it illegally. Likewise, you wouldn't call someone without a Medical Degree, an undocumented Doctor. If you practice medicine without a medical degree, you're doing it illegally. Likewise, we don't call illegal immigrants undocumented. If you are in this country without the consent of the law, you are here illegally. If you want to say that the law is flawed, and everyone should be allowed to live here without consent from the law, then that is a different issue. As it stands now, if you don't have consent to be here from the law, then you're here illegally.-- 146.244.138.238 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Using "illegal" implies that a migrant that crosses the border without documentation broke the law. It conjures up the conscious criminal act that several responders have used of "sneaking" across the border. On the contrary, "illegal" immigrants are for the most part recruited and hired by United States businesses. Therefore, the term undocumented captures the complex situation without putting value judgement on the migrant. It used to be illegal for slaves to escape from their master's to the north. If wikepedia were in that context they would label runaway slaves as "illegal runaways." --Jimmy P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.205.60 ( talk) 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
In state law, a foreigner is out of state. There are foreign insurers. Alien insurers are say UK insurers -- Lloyds of London. Lloyds of Lubbock Texas would be foreign in any state but Texas. An immigrant is a citizen, while an alien could be a permanent resident (right to remain indefintely) or a tourist or a student or an illegal alien. Technically there are no illegal immigrants except for all the reporters who don't know the legal terms. John wesley 14:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Should the caption of the picture near the start of the article start "Thousands of stupid mexicans gather...", as well as including the words "illegal Gay Mexis" in the article? Sounds like it violates NPOV, as well as being racist. 165.165.127.248 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The headline pretty much explains it all.-- Jersey Devil 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
In the intro sentence about the march I have removed the mostly hispanic statement and it's corresponding ref as unworkable. Pegasus1138 Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It's unusual for the US Senate to work off a house bill directly on major legislation until they are ready to go to conference. So accordingly, there should be a companion Senate Bill number to cite. Joncnunn 16:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we move this article to a much more suiting title. Some of these protests aren't even about immigrants rights, yet they're included. This title is too narrow, and I feel needs to represent a more broad subject. -- EMC 18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the word "justice" would suffice? It encompasses their need for awareness on this issue, winning rights, dignity, and purging criminalization. -- 71.255.104.101
To IP: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. To EMC, I think the title seems ok, but if you have any suggestions for a name change I'm listening.-- Jersey Devil 19:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind changing it to the latter, the former however does have some POV. Let's wait for a few others to comment on this.-- Jersey Devil 19:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I attended the protest in Austin. It was promoted as a "Rally for Immigrant Rights." I think it's fair to use the label the protesters themselves have chosen. While there is certainly a diverity of views among protesters as to the best policy, the central theme at the Austin protest at least was the dignity of immigrants and their rights. -- User:Qwints
Yes, that I think is the best proposal except that it must say U.S. in the title. "2006 U.S. Immigration reform protests".-- Jersey Devil 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
So how do we know whether the decision is unanimous or not? And I'm all for "2006 U.S. immigration reform protests". That works. -- EMC 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article should be merged with the Great American Boycott, since they are both about the same thing. dposse 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen the "in the news" section of the main page today? even that says that they are both the same.
"Immigration reform protests in the United States, sparked by proposed legislation H.R. 4437, continues with the Great American Boycott." dposse 21:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone following this issue closely could cite some financial statistics for the proposed law. How many immigrants do they plan to have imprisoned for how long, and how much is all that going to cost? How much do they expect the law to deter illegal immigration, and how much is that expected to save in tax money? Mike Serfas 03:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd really like someone to address, or write a paragraph in, representing the opposing view here. I mean, every poll, every day, says that >80% of US citizens favor clamping down on the borders; and this entire article makes it sound like the rallies and riots were universally accepted as over some civil rights issue. Most of the opponents (again 80+% of Americans) would be offended to see themselves written off as racists--it's more accurately seen as a discussion of whether the immigration issue has become so widespread in its own nature as to justify amnesty as part of a broad program of closing the borders. Again, until there is a truly statistically and politically significant number of people either protesting or sympathizing with said protestors, descriptions of protests need to reflect both positions semi-equally. -- Mrcolj 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This section shows a basic ignorance of the current political climate. A Washington-Post-ABC poll found that 63% of Americans favor letting immigrants who have been in the country for a long time begin the citizenship process. A Time magazine poll in March found that 78% of Americans favor " allowing illegal immigrants in the U.S. citizenship if they learn English, have a job and pay taxes. A similar number of Americans also favor increasing border security. I would argue that there is no need to keep out hardworking people who want to be Americans but that we do need to control borders to maintain national security. [user: Qwints]
I think the article now has too many photos for its length. Not only is this visually distracting, I believe it turns a NPOV article into a pro-protest article by now looking (from a visual point of view) like a propaganda piece. Any thoughts on how many pics we should have? I liked having two pictures, with the Nashville picture being a great pic for the top of the page and any one other pic. Any thoughts on this?-- Alabamaboy 17:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel the photos are unrepresentative of the scale of the protests. I would suggest at least one arial shot of the downtown Los Angeles protests.
The intro says there were protests in 94 cities on April 10th. The timeline says 102 cities. Kaldari 06:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Aren't the majority protests illegal,don't you have to be a citizen to protest? Dudtz 5/1/06 6:33 PM EST
Only citizens are protected under the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. I am not saying that them speaking is illegal,but they have NO RIGHT to protest our laws and bills. Citizens of the US should shape the US,not a forigen people. Dudtz 5/6/06 5:10 PM EST
Sigh. Maybe you should read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.231.28 ( talk) 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The thing I dont understand is why they dont go to Mexico city and demonstrate, and protest there. I could really care less if all of those illeagal immigrants left. Also, I completely agree with you Dudtz. El bender 23:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Why the hell can't they make Mexico better,if you want to be American,go through the legal process. Stupid preople say that "Mexicans take the jobs that we don't want",tell that to somone who lives in a place like, Flint Michigan . Dudtz 5/1/06 7:54 Pm EST
Completely agree with both. -- CrazyAmerican 02:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh shut up......... Do you know what is like having a family of 8 living in a 2 bedroom house and everyone in your household picks tomatoes and fruits no you don't so be quite... any poll or news station will tell you central americans do all of America's dirty work! We are all humans and should help each other-- HurricaneRo 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't hear of many Mexicans working at farms in places like New Hampshire,so they don't do all the dirty work. Dudtz 5/4/06 6:13 PM EST
So what if they take our jobs we don't want? The fact is they broke the law by coming here illegaly. Therefore, they should get deported. If you want a better job, come legaly. Th e Gerg 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the stats on the page say 300k in Chicago and 700k elsewhere, shouldn't the opening sentence say "a million people were involved in protest" rather then "millions"
300k + 700k = 1M (maybe a little more due to rounding). Millions means like 3M-6M. Ghostalker 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a place for free speech. It is a place where reality is created through concensus. A place where truth, like the truth that illegal immigrants are law-breaking criminals, is not important."
-The Managment
"Wikipedia is not the place to discuss that americans are the biggest criminals in history, with their wars and the racism and the thirst for oil have killed more people than any other country in this earth, and this is only to support the "american dream" of a house and two cars, which every people in this planet should envy and no one that wasn't born with pure american blood should enjoy. The rest of the world solely exists to make the american dream possible. But when the planes hit new york america woke up and realized -- everyone hates us. But they didn't understand why. Sooner or later they will, and maybe then "world peace" will become reality, and the world will not suffer hunger and death anymore. But while americans (the people, not the government) refuse to understand this, history will repeat itself."
@ whoever wrote the above^^^^ Actually, it was you Europeans that are the world's biggest criminals. You raped, pillaged, and murdered entire peoples then colonized their lands. You people started two WORLD WARS, at the cost of tens of millions of lives. Talk about criminal! The US fought very little wars when compare to what you Europeans did. Even the colonization of this country was done by you Europeans, not us Americans. After 1776 it was no longer colonization, we were native to this land. Just another tribe in the multitude of tribes in the fight for survival. -Proud Asian American Akaloc ( talk) 12:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"These actions were seen by some Americans as a sign of disrespect for both the flag and the United States.[13]"- That doesn't cut it. From what I've seen and heard, more than "some" Americans see this act as downright Treason, more than petty disrespect. I can understand waving a Mexican flag, sure, that's a protest. But hanging this country's flag upside-down, UNDER the Mexican flag? Sorry, but that's beyond disrespect. That's treasonous. If wikipedia is trying to document how people are reacting "currently," then 'some Americans' seeing it as 'a sign of disrespect' is too light a sprinkling of reality. People are pissed- don't leave out the truth, no matter how brutal it is. - Chewbacca 10:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want to use the term most, then you need to cite a source. most implies at least more than 50%. -- 130.191.17.38 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Please someone review this article, this is TOO biased. Remember this is the ENGLISH SPEAKING wikipedia NOT THE "AMERICAN WIKIPEDIA".
"Given the fact that no borders existed at the time and that Mexico itself was founded as a European colony the veracity of these claims is somewhat in doubt."
In any case, Mexicans have more native ascendancy than americans so if we were to give the land to whoever was here first, then america has to go. Also, considering that most places in Texas and California have spanish names, it's obvious "who was here first".
"There is some question as to the appropiatness of media outlets in organizing widespread civil disobedience. The stations in question may have violated the law."
This is coming from a country that had "THE" CIVIL WAR? Please, americans, don't try to teach us moral. Thank you very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).
You're quite biased yourself too, you know. If we wrote the article the exact way you'd want it it wouldn't be unbiased, just biased differently. -- Cyde Weys 17:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have found a California newspaper that has reported that a riot has taken place. Riot Reported During the May 1,2006 Demonstrations Where can this newspaper account be placed ? More reports of this nature will surface. Martial Law 23:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC) :)
A LOT of controversy over THIS: Image:Flag of Mexico.svg
And, YES, it's mostly about MEXICANS, in spite of the fact that illegal immigrants also come from other countries. 204.52.215.107 04:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Image:New 2000 hispanic percent.gif
I wonder if The Mexican Flag can be interpreted as un-American,It has a bird killing a snake,The Don't Thread On Me Flag has a snake on it. Dudtz5/4/06 6:28 PM EST
It could, but the flag really symbloizes the moment when Aztecs found the omen from the god Huitzilopochtli to build Technochelotian (now Mexico City). Th e Gerg 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 28-30, 2006. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Which comes closer to your view? It is only appropriate for people to sing the U.S. national anthem in English. OR, If people want to, it is appropriate for them to sing the U.S. national anthem in Spanish." Options rotated
4/28-30/06
I totally support the cause of the immigrants. However, adding this just took it too far: "In 2006, millions of people were involved in protests over a proposed reform to existing United States immigration laws were massacered by a huge evil army run by the evil President Bush. Apparently failing to kill them with his hurricanes, he decided to do it outright with his private army that took the oil from Iraq."
Can we please make this part less biased? AllStarZ 17:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed all instances of this word that I've been able to find, under Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Loaded words are inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Using "riot" implies the protestors started the fight, just as using "crackdown" would imply that law enforcement started the fight. "Altercation" has no insinuation of which side was responsible for the violence. The reader can follow the links to the news articles, and make their own decision as to who was responsible for the violence. Kasreyn 17:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
We should lock the topic soon. 209.221.73.5 18:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Glenn Spencer is reporting that the Washington Post is reporting a backlash. One town no longer has a daylaborer center, two councilmen, mayor, all thrown out for being pro-illegal alien, and the states are reacting to the illegal aliens. More on www.americanpatrol.com RIGHT NOW. Martial Law 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)
Where can it be stated that "a backlash is forming" in the article, related articles, since one is forming ? Martial Law 21:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)
In case you missed it: Labor Site Backlash Martial Law 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)
I noticed that someone deleted the entire section of this article dealing with the controversy and backlash. I've now placed it back in.-- Alabamaboy 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
This section is out of control. People, this is NOT an organization. It's a blog of a single minuteman. His views do not represent the views of any single organization, and his calls to action do not have the capacity to mobilize hundreds, yet alone dozens of people on any action.
The only significant anti-illegal immigration organizations are the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Center for Immigration Studies, and the Minuteman Project.
I'm removing all the stupid other "organizations against illegal immigration" whose websites don't list a non-PO BOx address as contact address or list names of individual staff people or board members. -- Yonghokim 04:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
First off, it's an overly long title. Secondly, it implies that there are others who are in favor of illegal immigration (that is, in favor of law-breaking).
The section is ridiculous and should be deleted. They're not against illegal immigration, because illegal immigration is against the law. A large majority of Americans are against illegal things. That's how things become illegal: a majority of us is against them. Duh! It's not illegal immigration they're against, Wiener and his ilk; it's immigration, pure and simple. But, it's not appropriate for us to say that, since that would be POV and Original Research. (Unless, of course, we could actually find a source citing Wiener saying he was against all immigration.)
So since our only options are to say something nonsensical (listing people who are against something most of us are against anyway) or to say something that violates NPOV (removing the "illegal" modifier), we really shouldn't have this list at all. Does anyone object to my removing it? Kasreyn 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
As of 5-5-06, the Minutemen will hold a counterprotest all over the US, final stop will be in Washington, D.C. Source: FOX News. Martial Law 05:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
I have seen two signs on the Arizona/California border that had this: You are entering California, Home of Illegal aliens as you enter California, and this when you leave California:You are Leaving California, Home of Illegal Aliens. Both were put up by the ACRU, website is www.acru.com. It means American Civil Responsibilities Union. I've seen the signs myself while there in Quartzite in 2000-2003. Martial Law 07:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
The ACRU is pro-America, anti-immorality, anti-illegal alien, pro-Christian, anti-ACLU, among other things. Martial Law 07:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
What is the real nature of this organization ? Martial Law 07:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
This is from Prison Planet, a news blog: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/040506violentinvasion.htm News Media Ordered NOT To Report Anything But "Peaceful Demonstrations". Santa Ana, CA Attacked in Bloody Riots, One County Employee SPEARED By Mexican Flag]. They charge that the "mainstream" media was ordered NOT to report anything other than "Peaceful Demonstrations", show a photo of a riot in progress, indicated that a person was assaulted, maybe killed by a illegal alien wielding a Mexican flag flying on a flagpole with a spearhead on it. Martial Law 07:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
Go see Re.: Backlash. Martial Law 22:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
Sheriff Arpaio Goes After Illegal Aliens. Since this link is malfunctioning on Wikipedia, go to www.americanpatrol.com/"Fighting Back: Sheriff's Possee Goes After Illegals". Sheriff Joe Arpaio stated on 5-3-06, on CNN that he and his Posse will go after Illegal Aliens. Martial Law 08:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)
I don't see how Sheriff Arpaio's statement has anything to do with the protests. While I'm the one who first wrote the controversy and backlash section and think the article benefited from having boths sides of the issue, that doesn't mean the article needs every reaction acgainst illegal immigrants in it. Only items directly related to the protests should be mentioned.-- Alabamaboy 13:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Usage within this article and in Wikipedia generally is inconsistent between undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant, and illegal alien. A central guideline should be adopted. A proposed one, with different versions recommending "illegal" and "undocumented," is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration). Kalkin 18:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I merged this and redirected the article to this one. Most of the contents was here already. Mceder 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
==Debatus.com== I was reading over the conversations here, and there's alot of debate in this talk page. I think Debatus.com, a wiki, has figured out a really innovative way to structure debates. You may want to check it out. The immigration related debates are at this link: Immigration Debates
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/May_Day_March_For_Immigrant_Rights_LA
Just added a collection of 75 photos to the wikimedia commons from the big may day 2006 march in LA.
Feel free to use photos where and if appropriate. -- Fluxaviator 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I was there. It may have been "economically insignificant", but it shouldn't be just minimized like that. It's undeniable that a huge number of people were there. I don't remember how many they were saying showed up, but it was standing room only, seas of people. At the very very very least 10,000 people, but almost for sure under 1,000,000 people. This needs to be added to the article, because the photos and video coverage of the event reflected a similar perception of a gigantic crowd. -- Node 13:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Illegal immigration has been an issue for many years. Recently, it has become more of a greater issue ever since they have introduced HR. 4437 in congress. One of the senate bill provisions of HR. 4437 says that it is illegal to be in a car with an illegal alien that does not have a license even if the person driving is a citizen. The United States is a Nation of Immigrants. Immigration has always been a part of our country’s history and always will be. In fact, there are over 15 million illegal immigrants today. Many people migrate to the U.S. to escape from communism or to improve their economic status to help their families back home. Besides, why would anyone want to take away hard working people that provide us with the food we eat everyday? It would be wrong to take away these people’s opportunities because they support almost half of our economy.
NEW Editing needed
there is bias in the end of the first paragraph and the beggining of the "internet effet" one jsut thought id point that out -johnny Moreno 3-21-07
WILL there be an article for 2007 protests?
Maybe, are you gonna make one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.198.70 ( talk) 01:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Now this article is deemed solved by this weird S.C. split ruling, no more problems with demos - The USA Supreme Court on June 16, 2008, per ponente Justice Kennedy ruled (5-4) "that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States." The lawsuit is about 2 seemingly contradictory provisions of immigration law. One prevents deportation by voluntary departure from the country. The other sectition allows immigrants who are here illegally but whose circumstances changed to build their case to immigration officials, and must remain in the US. In the case, Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen, overstayed beyond the expiration of his tourist visa in 1998. Immigration authorities ordered him to leave the country as he agreed to leave voluntarily, to allow his legal re-entry than if he had been deported. supremecourtus.gov, Dada vs. Mukasey, No 06-1181, June 16, 2008 ap.google.com, Top court eases rules for foreigners to try to stay in US-- Florentino floro ( talk) 15:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor deleted a considerable part of the article, including numerous references. [12] Could we please have some discussion here first? Regarding "dead links", many of them are available through the Internet Archive or other archives. Efforts to find them should be made before they're deleted. Will Beback talk 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
2006 United States immigration reform protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
2006 United States immigration reform protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
2006 United States immigration reform protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2006 United States immigration reform protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2006 United States immigration reform protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/search/ci_3661910{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20060402/NEWS09/604020379/Iowa%5C-s-future-linked-to-fate-of-immigrationWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Anastasia192 ( talk) 18:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Dead links #17 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.page14apr14,0,6713595.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines #18 http://www.whittierdailynews.com/ci_3661910 #19 http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4755663&nav=HMO6HMaY Anastasia192 ( talk) 18:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Anastasia192 ( talk) 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Is there a source with an exact number of participants in the May 2006 protest? "Yet, thousands of immigrants risked their jobs and joined the marches to demand political recognition.” Anastasia192 ( talk) 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on 2006 United States immigration reform protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Srbamberg ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Crodriguez2023 ( talk) 17:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This has a lot of incorrect information. Many pieces of information are unsources, and some are outright incorrect. One article regarding the walkout in Las Vegas said that the grand majority of businesses suffered no impact, but this Wiki page stated they did. This part especially should be improved. Panfakes 13:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The following information is found on second link ( "The American Flag Comes Second" by Michelle Malkin, posted March 29, 2006 01:15 AM. Both accessed April 14, 2006.)
that references the photos information:
My name is Barry Schwartz, Activities Director at Montebello High School. I would like to correct the information on your web site. The students that took done the American flag and put up the Mexican flag were NOT from Montebello High School…they were from El Rancho High School (Pico Rivera) and from the Whittier area high schools (app. 800- 1000 students were involved). Our students were in class at this time. If it weren’t for these students, our students were not have left school...Our school is getting a bad rap…the Administration, Staff, and students do not condone this action. Dreday13 18:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Like its companion H.R. 4437, I believe that this is a good topic idea. However, it likewise needs significant editing.
I'd be happy to work on it when I have time. But I hope that a more experienced Wikipedian takes an interest and starts editing before then. - Scottwiki 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article needs some editing to make the sections more organized and coherent. This is an important topic that should be addressed in a cogent and accurate manner. Chushimp26 ( talk) 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
As I'm unaware how to read this correctly, I thought I'd leave it to people who aren't getting the news from the Wikipedia. However:
That reads that 50k people rallied for both causes at once (as though they cannot choose). I somehow doubt that's what is meant.
Should this article be called "2006 immigration protests", "2006 illegal immigration protests" as it's currently been renamed, or something else? - Scottwiki 06:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Lets leave it as is for now. Its a current event dealing with illegal immigration, so most people searching the site for info the protest will imput something similar to the article name. When the legislation is passed we can do one of two things: consider moving the article to a more apropreite title, or merge it with a larger article. It all depends on public reaction. TomStar81 06:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I support the new name "2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests". This accurately captures what the protesters claim to seek (immigrant rights), which goes beyond the instigating legislation. -- Krubo 15:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Outnumber by 2/3rds majority. Very well, move it to where ever you think it best. I wont argue. TomStar81 20:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Ahould ne called illegal immigration protest to be completely factual.
I believe we are doing a disservice to all legal immigrants if we don't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
It's important to remember that the protests were in response to HR4437, which would have criminalized those that provided humanitarian services to undocumented immigrants, and would have criminalized undocumented immigrants (this has more to do with the distinction between civil and criminal federal legal jurisprudence). As a legal point, illegal or undocumented immigrants are not technically criminals. As an aside, pledase note that there is a lively debate about whether immigrants without papers should be referred to as illegal, undocumented or otherwise. Finally, the marches were also taking place at a time when immigrant activists were pressing from comprehensive immigration reform legislation that did specifically address the needs of both legal and undocumented immigrants, and other issues and concerns with regard to the immigration system. Finally, the marches themselves reflected a remarkable burst of activity but were themselves part of a longer tradition of immigrant rights marches. So I'd strongly recommend keeping the name 2006 United States Immigration Reform Protests or 2006 Immigrant Rights Protests. I'm happy to provide further documentation if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.117.227 ( talk) 01:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The policy on Wikipedia is that statements in articles should be supported by reliable sources. At the moment, there are several statements, a grab bag of external links, but little connection between the two. - Scottwiki 07:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The links on sources 7, 8, 10, 13, and 15 are broken. 168.213.7.58 12:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that alot of linked sources aren't available anymore. The ones I tried were #12, 13, 14, 18. Not sure if the'yre supposed to be removed or links changed? Dandan 03:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Over 60 events (around 3 million people) have protested so far.
3/7 D.C. 20,000 3/8 Atlanta 100 in city hall 3/10 Chicago 300,000 3/11 Tampa “several hundred” 3/14 Topeka KS “several hundred” 3/17 Santa Cruz 500 3/20 Trenton 1,200 3/22 Providence 200 3/23 Milwaukee 30,000 3/23 Racine WI
3/24 FRIDAY
campuses and at least one highschool, students climbed the gate after administrators declared a lockdown
students)
3/25 Saturday
estimates for, including Boise, Knoxville, and Reno
3/26 Sunday Columbus 4-7,000 L.A. 2,000 NYC/Washington Heights: 500
3/27 MONDAY San Francisco: 5,000? (hunger strike ends; march joins up with the March for Peace/Peregrinacion por la Paz from Tijuana) Santa Ana:700 rally while 200+ riot cops invade their neighborhood Watsonville march Detroit & Grand Rapids: over 50,000 Boston 2,000 Columbus ? D.C. 1,500 + 100 clergy Denver: strategy meeting, 200, mostly latin@ & some union organizers ending with work groups Louisville KY 3,000
WALKOUTS: L.A. 25-40, 000 (LA daily news) highschool walk out, blocking freeways, encircle city hall, from 52 high and middle schools Orange county highschoolers take over the Riverside Freeway Sacramento: 70 Fresno: over 500 San diego: 1,000+ Santa ana: morning, high school students shut down treasuer/tax collection office Phoenix: 400 walk out, march to capitol Farmersville (central Valley CA) 200 Also thousands of walkouts in Aptos, Hollister and Salinas.
3/28 Tuesday, ALL WALKOUTS L.A. 6,000 walkout from 25 schools Long beach: 400 San diego 3,000 walk out, rallies at chicano park, campuses Watsonville 1,000 Houston TX 1,000 Dallas 3,300 walk out & rally at city hall Springdale, Arkansas: 36 highschoolers Phoenix hundreds walk out, march to capitol again Farmersville walkouts day 2 Northern Virginia: 250 highschoolers, 8 middle schoolers
The forms in which numbers appear on this article needs to have a flow to it. For example, either express word notation (ex. seven-thousand) or express number notation (ex. 7,000). This is just for future reference for anybody who wants to edit and update this article. It may also recquire some clean-up. -- EMC 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
What connection should this article have to United States immigration debate and H.R. 4437? My feeling is that all text concerning legislation should be combined, especially if and when one of the bills is enacted. The debate and protests should also be merged into one article, since the protests lack much meaning without the substance behind them. An all-encompassing article would be reasonable, since the bills, the debate, and the protests are all closely linked. Why make the reader jump from one article to two others, when a single article can tell the whole story? - Scottwiki 01:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Some countries such as Luxembourg, Japan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia do not usually accept immigrants. While the United States does, it takes decades for people to become citizens at the present. I know many people who have been legal residents since the early 1990s and now they don't even have a green card . 66.81.192.88 05:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
and was the first piece of legislation passed by a house of Congress in the United States immigration debate.
The term "Undocumented Immigrant" appears in the introductory paragraph. I think this constituts a violation in our NPOV policy. Ive changed it for the time being.
P.S. Wow, someone beat me to it! Anyway, we should probably decided on a policy regarding the term anyway Keeperoftheseal 15:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Entering the country illegaly is a criminal offense. Being in the country without documentation is only a civil offense punishable by deportation. [user:Qwints]
The biggest difference between the legal terms (at least in the context of immigration)"illegal" and "undocumented" is mostly that the term "illegal" has negative connotations attached to it... Therefore, if we want the article to be NPOV we would use the word without the negative connotations so that the reader would decide for themselves, right? Otherwise the readers would be biased against the immigrants from the first couple of sentences... 206.15.236.254 16:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Calling an immigrant "undocumented" implies that they simply don't have their paper work yet. As if the whole issue is a technicality and they are just waiting for a rubber stamp. However, it's not a technicality. If you're in this country, and you're neither a citizen nor part of some kind of temporary stay program, then you're here "illegally". You're not just "undocumented". You wouldn't call someone without a driver’s license, an "undocumented" driver. If they drive a car, they are doing it illegally. Likewise, you wouldn't call someone without a Medical Degree, an undocumented Doctor. If you practice medicine without a medical degree, you're doing it illegally. Likewise, we don't call illegal immigrants undocumented. If you are in this country without the consent of the law, you are here illegally. If you want to say that the law is flawed, and everyone should be allowed to live here without consent from the law, then that is a different issue. As it stands now, if you don't have consent to be here from the law, then you're here illegally.-- 146.244.138.238 16:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Using "illegal" implies that a migrant that crosses the border without documentation broke the law. It conjures up the conscious criminal act that several responders have used of "sneaking" across the border. On the contrary, "illegal" immigrants are for the most part recruited and hired by United States businesses. Therefore, the term undocumented captures the complex situation without putting value judgement on the migrant. It used to be illegal for slaves to escape from their master's to the north. If wikepedia were in that context they would label runaway slaves as "illegal runaways." --Jimmy P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.205.60 ( talk) 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
In state law, a foreigner is out of state. There are foreign insurers. Alien insurers are say UK insurers -- Lloyds of London. Lloyds of Lubbock Texas would be foreign in any state but Texas. An immigrant is a citizen, while an alien could be a permanent resident (right to remain indefintely) or a tourist or a student or an illegal alien. Technically there are no illegal immigrants except for all the reporters who don't know the legal terms. John wesley 14:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Should the caption of the picture near the start of the article start "Thousands of stupid mexicans gather...", as well as including the words "illegal Gay Mexis" in the article? Sounds like it violates NPOV, as well as being racist. 165.165.127.248 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The headline pretty much explains it all.-- Jersey Devil 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
In the intro sentence about the march I have removed the mostly hispanic statement and it's corresponding ref as unworkable. Pegasus1138 Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It's unusual for the US Senate to work off a house bill directly on major legislation until they are ready to go to conference. So accordingly, there should be a companion Senate Bill number to cite. Joncnunn 16:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we move this article to a much more suiting title. Some of these protests aren't even about immigrants rights, yet they're included. This title is too narrow, and I feel needs to represent a more broad subject. -- EMC 18:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the word "justice" would suffice? It encompasses their need for awareness on this issue, winning rights, dignity, and purging criminalization. -- 71.255.104.101
To IP: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. To EMC, I think the title seems ok, but if you have any suggestions for a name change I'm listening.-- Jersey Devil 19:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind changing it to the latter, the former however does have some POV. Let's wait for a few others to comment on this.-- Jersey Devil 19:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I attended the protest in Austin. It was promoted as a "Rally for Immigrant Rights." I think it's fair to use the label the protesters themselves have chosen. While there is certainly a diverity of views among protesters as to the best policy, the central theme at the Austin protest at least was the dignity of immigrants and their rights. -- User:Qwints
Yes, that I think is the best proposal except that it must say U.S. in the title. "2006 U.S. Immigration reform protests".-- Jersey Devil 21:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
So how do we know whether the decision is unanimous or not? And I'm all for "2006 U.S. immigration reform protests". That works. -- EMC 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article should be merged with the Great American Boycott, since they are both about the same thing. dposse 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen the "in the news" section of the main page today? even that says that they are both the same.
"Immigration reform protests in the United States, sparked by proposed legislation H.R. 4437, continues with the Great American Boycott." dposse 21:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone following this issue closely could cite some financial statistics for the proposed law. How many immigrants do they plan to have imprisoned for how long, and how much is all that going to cost? How much do they expect the law to deter illegal immigration, and how much is that expected to save in tax money? Mike Serfas 03:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd really like someone to address, or write a paragraph in, representing the opposing view here. I mean, every poll, every day, says that >80% of US citizens favor clamping down on the borders; and this entire article makes it sound like the rallies and riots were universally accepted as over some civil rights issue. Most of the opponents (again 80+% of Americans) would be offended to see themselves written off as racists--it's more accurately seen as a discussion of whether the immigration issue has become so widespread in its own nature as to justify amnesty as part of a broad program of closing the borders. Again, until there is a truly statistically and politically significant number of people either protesting or sympathizing with said protestors, descriptions of protests need to reflect both positions semi-equally. -- Mrcolj 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This section shows a basic ignorance of the current political climate. A Washington-Post-ABC poll found that 63% of Americans favor letting immigrants who have been in the country for a long time begin the citizenship process. A Time magazine poll in March found that 78% of Americans favor " allowing illegal immigrants in the U.S. citizenship if they learn English, have a job and pay taxes. A similar number of Americans also favor increasing border security. I would argue that there is no need to keep out hardworking people who want to be Americans but that we do need to control borders to maintain national security. [user: Qwints]
I think the article now has too many photos for its length. Not only is this visually distracting, I believe it turns a NPOV article into a pro-protest article by now looking (from a visual point of view) like a propaganda piece. Any thoughts on how many pics we should have? I liked having two pictures, with the Nashville picture being a great pic for the top of the page and any one other pic. Any thoughts on this?-- Alabamaboy 17:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I feel the photos are unrepresentative of the scale of the protests. I would suggest at least one arial shot of the downtown Los Angeles protests.
The intro says there were protests in 94 cities on April 10th. The timeline says 102 cities. Kaldari 06:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Aren't the majority protests illegal,don't you have to be a citizen to protest? Dudtz 5/1/06 6:33 PM EST
Only citizens are protected under the Constitution and Bill Of Rights. I am not saying that them speaking is illegal,but they have NO RIGHT to protest our laws and bills. Citizens of the US should shape the US,not a forigen people. Dudtz 5/6/06 5:10 PM EST
Sigh. Maybe you should read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.231.28 ( talk) 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The thing I dont understand is why they dont go to Mexico city and demonstrate, and protest there. I could really care less if all of those illeagal immigrants left. Also, I completely agree with you Dudtz. El bender 23:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Why the hell can't they make Mexico better,if you want to be American,go through the legal process. Stupid preople say that "Mexicans take the jobs that we don't want",tell that to somone who lives in a place like, Flint Michigan . Dudtz 5/1/06 7:54 Pm EST
Completely agree with both. -- CrazyAmerican 02:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh shut up......... Do you know what is like having a family of 8 living in a 2 bedroom house and everyone in your household picks tomatoes and fruits no you don't so be quite... any poll or news station will tell you central americans do all of America's dirty work! We are all humans and should help each other-- HurricaneRo 01:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't hear of many Mexicans working at farms in places like New Hampshire,so they don't do all the dirty work. Dudtz 5/4/06 6:13 PM EST
So what if they take our jobs we don't want? The fact is they broke the law by coming here illegaly. Therefore, they should get deported. If you want a better job, come legaly. Th e Gerg 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the stats on the page say 300k in Chicago and 700k elsewhere, shouldn't the opening sentence say "a million people were involved in protest" rather then "millions"
300k + 700k = 1M (maybe a little more due to rounding). Millions means like 3M-6M. Ghostalker 03:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a place for free speech. It is a place where reality is created through concensus. A place where truth, like the truth that illegal immigrants are law-breaking criminals, is not important."
-The Managment
"Wikipedia is not the place to discuss that americans are the biggest criminals in history, with their wars and the racism and the thirst for oil have killed more people than any other country in this earth, and this is only to support the "american dream" of a house and two cars, which every people in this planet should envy and no one that wasn't born with pure american blood should enjoy. The rest of the world solely exists to make the american dream possible. But when the planes hit new york america woke up and realized -- everyone hates us. But they didn't understand why. Sooner or later they will, and maybe then "world peace" will become reality, and the world will not suffer hunger and death anymore. But while americans (the people, not the government) refuse to understand this, history will repeat itself."
@ whoever wrote the above^^^^ Actually, it was you Europeans that are the world's biggest criminals. You raped, pillaged, and murdered entire peoples then colonized their lands. You people started two WORLD WARS, at the cost of tens of millions of lives. Talk about criminal! The US fought very little wars when compare to what you Europeans did. Even the colonization of this country was done by you Europeans, not us Americans. After 1776 it was no longer colonization, we were native to this land. Just another tribe in the multitude of tribes in the fight for survival. -Proud Asian American Akaloc ( talk) 12:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"These actions were seen by some Americans as a sign of disrespect for both the flag and the United States.[13]"- That doesn't cut it. From what I've seen and heard, more than "some" Americans see this act as downright Treason, more than petty disrespect. I can understand waving a Mexican flag, sure, that's a protest. But hanging this country's flag upside-down, UNDER the Mexican flag? Sorry, but that's beyond disrespect. That's treasonous. If wikipedia is trying to document how people are reacting "currently," then 'some Americans' seeing it as 'a sign of disrespect' is too light a sprinkling of reality. People are pissed- don't leave out the truth, no matter how brutal it is. - Chewbacca 10:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want to use the term most, then you need to cite a source. most implies at least more than 50%. -- 130.191.17.38 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Please someone review this article, this is TOO biased. Remember this is the ENGLISH SPEAKING wikipedia NOT THE "AMERICAN WIKIPEDIA".
"Given the fact that no borders existed at the time and that Mexico itself was founded as a European colony the veracity of these claims is somewhat in doubt."
In any case, Mexicans have more native ascendancy than americans so if we were to give the land to whoever was here first, then america has to go. Also, considering that most places in Texas and California have spanish names, it's obvious "who was here first".
"There is some question as to the appropiatness of media outlets in organizing widespread civil disobedience. The stations in question may have violated the law."
This is coming from a country that had "THE" CIVIL WAR? Please, americans, don't try to teach us moral. Thank you very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).
You're quite biased yourself too, you know. If we wrote the article the exact way you'd want it it wouldn't be unbiased, just biased differently. -- Cyde Weys 17:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have found a California newspaper that has reported that a riot has taken place. Riot Reported During the May 1,2006 Demonstrations Where can this newspaper account be placed ? More reports of this nature will surface. Martial Law 23:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC) :)
A LOT of controversy over THIS: Image:Flag of Mexico.svg
And, YES, it's mostly about MEXICANS, in spite of the fact that illegal immigrants also come from other countries. 204.52.215.107 04:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Image:New 2000 hispanic percent.gif
I wonder if The Mexican Flag can be interpreted as un-American,It has a bird killing a snake,The Don't Thread On Me Flag has a snake on it. Dudtz5/4/06 6:28 PM EST
It could, but the flag really symbloizes the moment when Aztecs found the omen from the god Huitzilopochtli to build Technochelotian (now Mexico City). Th e Gerg 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 28-30, 2006. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Which comes closer to your view? It is only appropriate for people to sing the U.S. national anthem in English. OR, If people want to, it is appropriate for them to sing the U.S. national anthem in Spanish." Options rotated
4/28-30/06
I totally support the cause of the immigrants. However, adding this just took it too far: "In 2006, millions of people were involved in protests over a proposed reform to existing United States immigration laws were massacered by a huge evil army run by the evil President Bush. Apparently failing to kill them with his hurricanes, he decided to do it outright with his private army that took the oil from Iraq."
Can we please make this part less biased? AllStarZ 17:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed all instances of this word that I've been able to find, under Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Loaded words are inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Using "riot" implies the protestors started the fight, just as using "crackdown" would imply that law enforcement started the fight. "Altercation" has no insinuation of which side was responsible for the violence. The reader can follow the links to the news articles, and make their own decision as to who was responsible for the violence. Kasreyn 17:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
We should lock the topic soon. 209.221.73.5 18:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Glenn Spencer is reporting that the Washington Post is reporting a backlash. One town no longer has a daylaborer center, two councilmen, mayor, all thrown out for being pro-illegal alien, and the states are reacting to the illegal aliens. More on www.americanpatrol.com RIGHT NOW. Martial Law 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)
Where can it be stated that "a backlash is forming" in the article, related articles, since one is forming ? Martial Law 21:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)
In case you missed it: Labor Site Backlash Martial Law 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC) :)
I noticed that someone deleted the entire section of this article dealing with the controversy and backlash. I've now placed it back in.-- Alabamaboy 21:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
This section is out of control. People, this is NOT an organization. It's a blog of a single minuteman. His views do not represent the views of any single organization, and his calls to action do not have the capacity to mobilize hundreds, yet alone dozens of people on any action.
The only significant anti-illegal immigration organizations are the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Center for Immigration Studies, and the Minuteman Project.
I'm removing all the stupid other "organizations against illegal immigration" whose websites don't list a non-PO BOx address as contact address or list names of individual staff people or board members. -- Yonghokim 04:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
First off, it's an overly long title. Secondly, it implies that there are others who are in favor of illegal immigration (that is, in favor of law-breaking).
The section is ridiculous and should be deleted. They're not against illegal immigration, because illegal immigration is against the law. A large majority of Americans are against illegal things. That's how things become illegal: a majority of us is against them. Duh! It's not illegal immigration they're against, Wiener and his ilk; it's immigration, pure and simple. But, it's not appropriate for us to say that, since that would be POV and Original Research. (Unless, of course, we could actually find a source citing Wiener saying he was against all immigration.)
So since our only options are to say something nonsensical (listing people who are against something most of us are against anyway) or to say something that violates NPOV (removing the "illegal" modifier), we really shouldn't have this list at all. Does anyone object to my removing it? Kasreyn 04:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
As of 5-5-06, the Minutemen will hold a counterprotest all over the US, final stop will be in Washington, D.C. Source: FOX News. Martial Law 05:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
I have seen two signs on the Arizona/California border that had this: You are entering California, Home of Illegal aliens as you enter California, and this when you leave California:You are Leaving California, Home of Illegal Aliens. Both were put up by the ACRU, website is www.acru.com. It means American Civil Responsibilities Union. I've seen the signs myself while there in Quartzite in 2000-2003. Martial Law 07:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
The ACRU is pro-America, anti-immorality, anti-illegal alien, pro-Christian, anti-ACLU, among other things. Martial Law 07:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
What is the real nature of this organization ? Martial Law 07:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
This is from Prison Planet, a news blog: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/040506violentinvasion.htm News Media Ordered NOT To Report Anything But "Peaceful Demonstrations". Santa Ana, CA Attacked in Bloody Riots, One County Employee SPEARED By Mexican Flag]. They charge that the "mainstream" media was ordered NOT to report anything other than "Peaceful Demonstrations", show a photo of a riot in progress, indicated that a person was assaulted, maybe killed by a illegal alien wielding a Mexican flag flying on a flagpole with a spearhead on it. Martial Law 07:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
Go see Re.: Backlash. Martial Law 22:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :)
Sheriff Arpaio Goes After Illegal Aliens. Since this link is malfunctioning on Wikipedia, go to www.americanpatrol.com/"Fighting Back: Sheriff's Possee Goes After Illegals". Sheriff Joe Arpaio stated on 5-3-06, on CNN that he and his Posse will go after Illegal Aliens. Martial Law 08:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)
I don't see how Sheriff Arpaio's statement has anything to do with the protests. While I'm the one who first wrote the controversy and backlash section and think the article benefited from having boths sides of the issue, that doesn't mean the article needs every reaction acgainst illegal immigrants in it. Only items directly related to the protests should be mentioned.-- Alabamaboy 13:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Usage within this article and in Wikipedia generally is inconsistent between undocumented immigrant, illegal immigrant, and illegal alien. A central guideline should be adopted. A proposed one, with different versions recommending "illegal" and "undocumented," is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration). Kalkin 18:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I merged this and redirected the article to this one. Most of the contents was here already. Mceder 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
==Debatus.com== I was reading over the conversations here, and there's alot of debate in this talk page. I think Debatus.com, a wiki, has figured out a really innovative way to structure debates. You may want to check it out. The immigration related debates are at this link: Immigration Debates
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/May_Day_March_For_Immigrant_Rights_LA
Just added a collection of 75 photos to the wikimedia commons from the big may day 2006 march in LA.
Feel free to use photos where and if appropriate. -- Fluxaviator 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I was there. It may have been "economically insignificant", but it shouldn't be just minimized like that. It's undeniable that a huge number of people were there. I don't remember how many they were saying showed up, but it was standing room only, seas of people. At the very very very least 10,000 people, but almost for sure under 1,000,000 people. This needs to be added to the article, because the photos and video coverage of the event reflected a similar perception of a gigantic crowd. -- Node 13:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Illegal immigration has been an issue for many years. Recently, it has become more of a greater issue ever since they have introduced HR. 4437 in congress. One of the senate bill provisions of HR. 4437 says that it is illegal to be in a car with an illegal alien that does not have a license even if the person driving is a citizen. The United States is a Nation of Immigrants. Immigration has always been a part of our country’s history and always will be. In fact, there are over 15 million illegal immigrants today. Many people migrate to the U.S. to escape from communism or to improve their economic status to help their families back home. Besides, why would anyone want to take away hard working people that provide us with the food we eat everyday? It would be wrong to take away these people’s opportunities because they support almost half of our economy.
NEW Editing needed
there is bias in the end of the first paragraph and the beggining of the "internet effet" one jsut thought id point that out -johnny Moreno 3-21-07
WILL there be an article for 2007 protests?
Maybe, are you gonna make one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.198.70 ( talk) 01:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Now this article is deemed solved by this weird S.C. split ruling, no more problems with demos - The USA Supreme Court on June 16, 2008, per ponente Justice Kennedy ruled (5-4) "that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States." The lawsuit is about 2 seemingly contradictory provisions of immigration law. One prevents deportation by voluntary departure from the country. The other sectition allows immigrants who are here illegally but whose circumstances changed to build their case to immigration officials, and must remain in the US. In the case, Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen, overstayed beyond the expiration of his tourist visa in 1998. Immigration authorities ordered him to leave the country as he agreed to leave voluntarily, to allow his legal re-entry than if he had been deported. supremecourtus.gov, Dada vs. Mukasey, No 06-1181, June 16, 2008 ap.google.com, Top court eases rules for foreigners to try to stay in US-- Florentino floro ( talk) 15:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
An editor deleted a considerable part of the article, including numerous references. [12] Could we please have some discussion here first? Regarding "dead links", many of them are available through the Internet Archive or other archives. Efforts to find them should be made before they're deleted. Will Beback talk 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 05:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
2006 United States immigration reform protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
2006 United States immigration reform protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
2006 United States immigration reform protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2006 United States immigration reform protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2006 United States immigration reform protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/search/ci_3661910{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20060402/NEWS09/604020379/Iowa%5C-s-future-linked-to-fate-of-immigrationWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Anastasia192 ( talk) 18:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Dead links #17 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.page14apr14,0,6713595.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines #18 http://www.whittierdailynews.com/ci_3661910 #19 http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4755663&nav=HMO6HMaY Anastasia192 ( talk) 18:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Anastasia192 ( talk) 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Is there a source with an exact number of participants in the May 2006 protest? "Yet, thousands of immigrants risked their jobs and joined the marches to demand political recognition.” Anastasia192 ( talk) 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on 2006 United States immigration reform protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Srbamberg ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Crodriguez2023 ( talk) 17:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)