This page is not a forum for general discussion about Undocumented immigrant population of the United States. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Undocumented immigrant population of the United States at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 September 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nclark6535.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The legal term is "illegal alien", which term sums up the nature of the offense, the nature of the individual so defined and the gravity of such offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeaPartyImmigrationCoalition ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

amen 98.4.124.117 ( talk)

I feel the term "undocumented" is disingenuous and falls outside of the norm found in the pages Illegal immigration to the United States, Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States and the category Illegal immigration to the United States. - Schrandit ( talk) 16:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Agree, the term 'undocumented' is argumentative and misleading, as if there is simply inadequate documentation rather than being present illegally. 'Illegal' is a more honest characterization of the status but 'unauthorized' or 'illegally present' are sufficient too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:427F:8649:6D3C:22BC:7F49:9996 ( talk) 07:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply

This is correct. The term "ILLEGAL" NEEDS to be changed to Undocumented 67.79.72.68 ( talk) 03:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)adam socki 67.79.72.68 ( talk) 03:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

An alternative term that seems to have gained currency is "unauthorized". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiknowledge ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The term "unauthorized" is used by the Pew reports that are cited on this page - for consistency, if not accuracy, the correct term be used. - JCS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.228.18.227 ( talk) 17:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Perhaps a good first step would be creation of a WP page devoted to the terminology debate, as it does seem to be a Thing in American culture, possibly using the Jose Antonio Vargas page as a beginning point. Neutrality debate can follow on that page, and then, after time and resolution, expand outward to articles like this. Thoughts? -- Akhenaten0 ( talk) 15:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

It is standard to use the term undocumented immigrant according to the style books of all major news sources. The term "illegal" is grammatically appropriate to describe actions, not people. ^[1] Dianaemiko ( talk) 15:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

The term illegal has evovled into a pejorative term. Since immigrants included are asylum seekers waiting on papers, people who came legally and stayed, migrant workers who do not stay all year but instead migrant between here and their country of origin. Also the violation itself is akin to a traffic ticket. And while we say they got a ticket for driving without a licence are illegally driving we dont call them illegal drivers, we call them unlicensed drivers. Aka a driver without the proper documentation Meemsworldwide ( talk) 12:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

This last comment is obviously asinine. If someone were to be an 'illegal driver' they could be committing any number of offences from DUI, speeding, carrying contraband, displaying offensive plates, running red lights, etc. The fact is that many legal residents do not carry documents on their person and an 'asylum seeker' who has not sought legal asylum but simply jumped the border fence is not an 'asylum seeker'.

The fact is that how these people came to be without documents points to the actual offence that they committed. That they never had documents and are foreign nationals illegally dwelling in the United States. Or in the case of someone who illegaly overstays a visa; they have documents but the documents do not allow them to stay here and hence, their residence is illegal, an illegal immigrant but not an undocumented immigrant.

The term 'immigrant' is also misleading as the above writer pointed out that many illegals are not attempting to immigrate but are simply 'migrating' for whatever purpose and do not intent to stay; hence the proper term is 'illegal alien'.

'Unauthorized immigrant' is also sort of misleading for the same reasons, it only exists as a term to play down the offence and obfuscate the meaning, they are unauthorized, why? Because they're trespassing, on their lunch break? On specific govt. property? Because their residence is illegal and they have broken the law.

This other assertion that illegal immigration is somehow akin to a traffic ticket is frankly just silly, no one believes that, least of all the illegal immigrants who presumably live in some fear that ICE could knock down their door and snatch them up and send them home at any time.

And to Dianaemiko: I fail to see the relevance that politically motivated news 'sources' such as AP or Reuters exclusively using the term requires the use of the term to the exclusion of other, more descriptive terms on wikipedia, is that rule recorded somewhere in the byzantine and orwellian rulebooks of wikipedia?

Furthermore the term 'illegal' can perfectly describe people in the same way and is currently used by the same 'news source' you mentioned for the following: 'illegal voter', 'illegal soldier', 'illegal combatant', 'illegal butcher, artist, etc.', 'illegal occupant' (such as a stowaway). The term refers to some action the subject has taken or their status specifically, the only reason 'undocumented immigrant' is preferred is a political one. LikkerdySplit ( talk) 11:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The fact is that it is not a political choice. In the United States, the term used to be illegal. Now, the word illegal is preferred by Republicans, and the word undocumented or unauthorized preferred by Democrats.

A better indication would be to use the word as it is used in other countries, where it has become less politicized.

It is difficult to use newspapers as a style reference when every newspaper leans Republic or Democrat.

Oxenfording (
talk) 19:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
reply

I believe this section need to be reviewed and corrected. The section implies that the data represents "Remittances to Mexico" from the USA. The fact is that the underlining data is taken from reports by Mexican banking authorities for "Remittances INTO Mexico" from the USA as well as other countries. Buzzards27 ( talk) 14:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'd like to know if these figures have been updated. Brian Pearson ( talk)

I also believe the section should be updated to ensure that readers understand that we are only using a single source for the data and trusting that that 'source' has a vested interest in telling the truth AND is collecting ALL the data. MacGyver2k ( talk) 13:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The terms "illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are racist when used to describe people born outside the US that have not been found guilty of a felony in a court of law.

Describing someone as "illegal" because of nationality, appearance, or documentation status - but not because of court conviction - is political activism intended to influence elections. Wikipedia is a charity and that is prohibited by law.

The federal tax law is very strict on the issue: A 501(c)(3) organization is absolutely forbidden to directly or indirectly participate in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Violation of this prohibition could lead the IRS to completely revoke an organization's tax-exempt status or impose excise taxes on the organization.

Articles covering immigration in the United States must stick with statutory law in 8 USC Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY and case law from US Federal Court Decisions. Those are the only legitimate authorities on the topic of immigration because it has been unconstitutional for states to implement immigration law since 1790.

"Illegal alien" and "illegal immigrant" are only applicable to someone that has been found guilty of a felony in a court of law.

The correct term to describe a foreign born individual that doesn't have the right documentation is "undocumented". Not "illegal".

People born outside the United States are not automatically categorized as "illegal" anywhere in US law.

"Undocumented foreign born worker", "undocumented foreign born students", and "undocumented foreign born residents" become documented by obtaining documentation. Incarceration, deportation, and "illegal" are not applicable.

It is illegal for a charitable organization to engage in political activity in the United States.

The following facts are missing from articles that mention "illegal immigration" and "illegal aliens", which obviously influences voting behavior whether or not that is the intent.

• The fees for the most recent residency forms are found at Department of Homeland Security.
• US citizens won't take certain jobs that are usually done by foreign workers, like fruit picking estimated at $0.36 per pound, because it is hard work with a small paycheck. That causes labor shortages.
• Employers must pay fees to document each temporary foreign worker when there are no US citizen job applicants ($325 to $1,500 plus other fees as of 2011).
• Each foreign worker must pay $405 to $1,020 for themselves plus $230 to $420 for each relative after the employer pays to document the temporary migrant worker.
• Employers must pay to document foreign employees, plus visa extension if applicable.
• Visa fees increased over 80% in 2007 accounting for almost 96 percent of USCIS’s fiscal year 2008 budget of $2.6 billion, creating tens of thousands of high-pay low-skill jobs for US citizens.
• Foreign laborers often work for no pay for several months each year to earn enough to pay the visa cost.
• Foreign workers become undocumented when employers refuse to pay fees and file paperwork ($10,000 fine).
• Farm businesses and jobs for US citizens are destroyed when states interfere with the immigration process.
• The Real ID Act of 2005 banned drivers licenses for foreign workers when the employer refuses to pay documentation fees.
• California confiscated and sold about $40 million worth of vehicles annually from undocumented immigrants starting in 2005, in violation of the 4th amendment.
• US housing abandonment climbed to 18 million from 2005 to 2010 according to CNBC.
• The US population declined while Mexico's population grew by 16 million:

• Mexico counted 97 million in the 2000 census.
• Mexico counted 113 million in the 2010 census.

• Mexico's birth rate cannot account for the recent population growth.
• California's economic downturn in 2009 is the worst since the Great Depression.

The following facts are also missing from most articles that cover immigration in North America:

• Immigration control was prohibited for states in 1790, with a 2 year residency required for "white people" to obtain citizenship and civil rights protection.
• Immigrant visa fees became mandatory at all border crossings and harbors in 1920 to raise federal revenue.
• In 1921, the first quantitative immigration law was adopted. It set temporary annual quotas according to nationality (and race).
• Herbert Hoover began Mexican Repatriation by lowering the immigrant quota threshold below the number of legal immigrants and citizens in March 1929.
• The economy destabilized in September 1929, about 6 months after Mexican Repatriation began.
• California responded to the destabilized economy by introducing a law in the US Congress that initiated the unconstitutional removal of several million US residents without regard to legal residency status or citizenship.
• Property was confiscated and sold to pay transportation expenses, in violation of the 4th amendment.
• From 1929 to 1932 new home sales in the United States declined 80 percent as the number of US residents abruptly declined.
• Native Americans received right to obtain birth certificates that would prevent future deportations for people born in the United States after 1968.
• California officially apologized for deporting over 1 million US citizens and legal residents during the Great Depression in 2005.
• Study estimates that undocumented immigrants paid $11.2B in taxes last year, unlike GE, which paid zero

Intentionally omitting relevant facts in order to pursue a political agenda is a violation of 501 charity status.

"Illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are being used in many Wikipedia articles to describe Mexicans and other latinos that are not criminals. This derogatory and racist language is an attempt to alter voting patterns of people that lack experience regarding immigration and employment. Wikipedia is an "encyclopedic reference" used by students that will eventually become able to vote. It is a violation of federal tax law for a charitable institution to engage in that kind of political activity. Wikipedia articles become political activity when the terms "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" are used to describe people that have not been found guilty of misdemeanor or felony in a court of law. Taxes could be owed starting on the date when charity status was first compromised by that kind of language.

The correct word used to describe a person that lacks documentation is "undocumented". The non-political terminology is "undocumented tourist" for tourists with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born worker" any time an employer fails to pay the documentation fee for a foreign born worker, "undocumented foreign born student" for exchange students with an expired visa, "undocumented foreign born resident" for people living in the US with an expired visa, etc.

Many people born before 1959 in Hawaii and Alaska are undocumented because they cannot obtain a valid US birth certificate. Most people born before 1940 in places like Arizona and Oklahoma are undocumented because valid US birth certificate were not issued in most counties for lack of funding. Descendants of over 1 million US citizens deported to Mexico in the 1930s are also US citizens. All are undocumented. None of those people are "illegal", but many Wikipedia articles imply that they are all criminals.

"Illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" would be non-political if used in a quote citing another source, like this one:

Arizona’s Conservative White Legislators: Illiterate and Racist on Immigration

SB 1070 is at best an inflammatory law and will surely come to serve as a rationale to justify violent attacks by the misguided against persons who appear to “look illegal.” ... Indeed, it is this ecology of fear that led to the murder of a young legal Ecuadorian immigrant in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn on December 7, 2008. The perpetrators of this crime were white youth who, like those convicted last month on Long Island for a similar crime, were out “Beaner hopping” or hunting for “illegal aliens.”

• The Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
• It was ratified by the United States in 1951.

The kind of racist language used in Wikipedia articles mentioning "illegals" is being used to encourage genocidal behavior. That obviously falls in the category of political activism.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Non-academic examples of how the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" communicate racism help to illustrate how "illegal" articles compromises the intellectual integrity and charity status of Wikipedia.

• The anti-illegal immigrant agenda is about promoting xenophobia and nativism that has surfaced at various times in our history.
• Those who agree with Mr. Vargas say “illegal” should be banned because it suggests that “illegal immigrants” are criminals, which often isn’t true.
• Texas trooper in chopper shoots, kills 2 suspected illegal immigrants
• TEXAS ASKS FBI TO INVESTIGATE HELICOPTER SHOOTING
• Colorado Gas Station Caught Selling “Illegal Immigrant Hunting Permit” Sticker
• Gas Station Pulls Racist 'Illegal Immigrant Hunting Permit' Bumper Stickers
• Oops! You're racist.
• Taco Cid ... in Columbia, S.C., .. produced ... the T-shirt includes an image of a wooden trap with tacos used as bait and a caption that reads: “How to catch an illegal immigrant.”
• Charles Garcia created a stir among many conservatives recently when he defended and parroted allegations that using the term “illegal immigrant” is a racist slur.
• Mexican Restaurant Causes Commotion over “Racist T-shirt”
• Hundreds Protest NYU Republicans’ Racist “Illegal Immigrant” Hunt
• Immigrant tuition petition drive is all about bigotry

Remember:

• if it's clear vandalism and you can't fix it, please email info-en-vwikimedia.org and include the address or title of the article and a description of the issue.
• if it's an error or omission, please leave a note at the talk page of the article explaining the problem.

These facts are well known and relevant to all immigration discussions involving North America.

I hope this finds everyone well.

Best Regards, nanoatzin (talk)

OMG. Much of what you just wrote here is clearly political!!! 136.181.195.29 ( talk) 15:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Nothing they did was illegal. Except when they walked over a sovereign boarder without the permission of that nation. Nothing illegal but that. 153.31.112.21 ( talk) 04:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I believe you are wrong. From my understanding, English people don't call illegal someone who walked over a sovereign boarder without the permission of that nation, but someone who lives somewhere without the permission (authorization) of that nation. That's quite different. But in fact this word remains remains unclear, for instance two opposite definition can be found:

• According to the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, it is an offensive noun: A person who is not legally authorized to live and work in a country.
• According to the Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged: a person who has entered or attempted to enter a country illegally

The truth is that the Declaration of Independence, was a call to war, and the founding of a new empire, totally illegitimate and illegal [1]. Nonetheless it stated that «We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness». [2] So where illegal created equal to those who are not illegal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 ( talk) 22:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC) reply

What? What does the Declaration of Independence have to do about anything? That Declaration involved an 8 year war to secure those rights, the American Patriots who were present in the Thirteen Colonies were legal residents of those colonies. Back then if a Spanish soldier crossed the border from Spanish Florida into Georgia he would be arrested and interrogated and promptly deported, I don't follow your logic at all. Foreigners are created equal as a measure of their human value but they are not created as American citizens or residents. Just because someone is legally equal in worth or value does not mean that they can invade countries and come and go in them as they please. LikkerdySplit ( talk) 12:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC) reply

In the current form, the article is highly misleading using primary documents as sourcing. The section about Remittances to Mexico is based on Bear Stearn investigation which is lacking citation from a news article. The section read more as a talk page discussion than an article. My suggestion is to merge any useful information to Illegal immigration to the United States.-- Jmundo ( talk) 14:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• So, start by getting rid of the bad parts of this article. Perhaps the remaining good part will amount to a paragraph or two, in which case it will no longer need an article of its own.

My name is Katherine and I am currently a senior attending Rice University. I intend on writing a new Wikipedia page titled “Healthcare availability for undocumented immigrants,” for which I thought this page would serve as a great parent article for. In this new article I intend on including four main sections on the following: introduction/background, usage of healthcare services, barriers to accessing the health care system, and relevant federal and state-level policies. Under each of these main sections, except the introduction, there will also be at least one subsection related to particular populations, such as women or specific data found on the topic. This proposed contribution is also part of a course I am taking for my minor on poverty, justice, and human capabilities. Please feel free to offer thoughts, advice, and suggestions! Katcai02 ( talk) 21:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I've removed the Bears Stearns report (Justich and Ng), because:

1. It is outdated (2005).
2. Except for some news reports at the time that it first was published (2005), the The report does not appear to be substantially cited recently by scholars or journalists. (Unlike the Pew, DHS, or Center for Migration Studies stats, which are frequently cited for both historical and present estimates).
3. The "20 million" figure is far, far out of the range of what other sources say. It's an extraordinary claim.
4. The report is not footnoted and provides almost no quantitative analysis.
5. The work was self-published and was not peer-reviewed or published under the auspices of a recognized authority, like a think tank.

Notably, it comes with the following disclaimer: "The views expressed herein are those of the individual author and may differ from those expressed by other Bear Stearns Asset Management Inc. and Bear Stearns & Co. departments, including any of the Bear Stearns & Co. research department."

The authors are financial analysts but we have almost no information on their qualifications or expertise (if any). This report in Barron's indicated that Justich's area of expertise had nothing to do with immigration, and that his interest in the subject was a side project or something that he was interested in.

-- Neutrality ^talk 07:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Re this edit, which I've reverted: the cited source literally says: "The unauthorized immigrant population ... dropped sharply during the Great Recession of 2007-09" and has remained stable since. So "leveled off" is much further from the original source, and is not an improvement. (The edit also introduces a factual inaccuracy by referring to the " Great Recession in 2009" when in fact the recession occurred over multiple years.)

Because the current wording is stable and directly supported by the cited source, it should not be changed without consensus here. Neutrality ^talk 02:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

As I am writing this it's 2018 and basically all the data presented in the article has been updated in the real world. It's chock full of political advocacy so there's folks waiting to challenge anything updating or added reflecting that we've moved on from 2007. patsw ( talk) 15:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

User:Snooganssnoogans reverted [ my edit] about the new Yale estimate on the basis of being not NPOV. I do not see how it can be characterized as such. If there is non-NPOV language, it should be modified. The solution cannot be to simply return to stating the prior estimates as definitively true and then mentioning the Yale study as essentially a footnote. I had written "most estimates ..." and "a new study ...," which addresses this well; I do not see a basis for the elimination of nearly all of that content and the marginalization of what remains. Mikalra ( talk) 18:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I did not simply "revert" you. I re-wrote the text to make it compliant with NPOV. We don't describe studies as "more sophisticated" (in particular when the study has been challenged). The study is in the text, and described in a NPOV manner. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

First, the Yale method IS more sophisticated than the residual method. But in any event, if that's your objection, it would be sufficient to give my original text and simply remove these two words. Do you agree to that? Mikalra ( talk) 17:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

No, I agree with the version of the text that I wrote (obviously) [3]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

... and I agree with the version of the text that I wrote (obviously); that doesn't get us anywhere. What is your basis for leaving prior estimates stated as fact, rather than "most estimates.... but a Yale study..."? What is your basis for eliminating all details on methodology on the Yale study in the methodology section of the entry? What is your basis for leaving the mean estimate for the Pew and other studies, but only the 95% CI for Yale? What is your basis for describing the Yale study as a "PLOSOne study", which is the venue where the study was published, not the organization or investigator that conducted it? Mikalra ( talk) 17:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree with some earlier comments that "undocumented immigrant" is almost a propaganda term, but "illegal immigrant" is nonsensical word salad. Acts, not people, are illegal. "Illegal immigration" makes sense; "illegal immigrant" does not. Is there really no better title for this article? Bueller 007 ( talk) 17:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I disagree with your view that "illegal immigrant" does not make sense. We all understand what an "illegal drug" is, don't we? And it makes perfect sense to say that someone could be arrested for possession of an "illegal drug" - everyone understands what is meant by the phrase, do they not? "Illegal immigrant" is just the same. It makes perfect sense. Birtig ( talk) 18:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The final sentence in the lead in paragraph states "By all measures, the population of undocumented immigrants and the number of border apprehensions has declined substantially since 2007."

This is just an opinion, not based on any referenced information. It's also a lie. Unless you want to get into a debate about which 'source' or 'sources' are legit to take the numbers from you can't claim the numbers have declined. If the starting number is not 'known' and the current number is not 'known' you can't deduce if there's been an increase or decrease.

It's apparent that the 'powers that be' on this thread have an agenda, that's cool, I get it, just be honest about it. MacGyver2k

I've removed that sentence as it contradicted what was stated elsewhere in the article Birtig ( talk) 15:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Which part of the article do you think it contradicts? The article says (with sources):

• The number of illegal immigrants peaked at about 12 million in 2007 and since that time has declined
• According to the Pew Research Center, in 2007 the number of unauthorized Mexican immigrants peaked at 6.9 million and has dropped by more than 1 million to an estimated 5.6 million in 2014
• Just as the total population of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has declined since 2007, the proportion of illegal immigrants in the workforce has also declined
• The total number of Mexicans residing in the US, with and without authorization, was 11.7 million in 2014, down from the peak of 12.8 million in 2007. The drop is primarily the result of the decrease in the number of unauthorized migrants—which make up 48% of the Mexican population in the US in 2014, down from 54% in 2007

Nothing in the article says or implies otherwise. We could tweak the wording slightly, but that sentence obviously belongs in the lead, since it summarizes a vital point repeated throughout the article - and one that, at least based on the article, is not in dispute among reliable sources. -- Aquillion ( talk) 15:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The sentence claims "By all measures..." yet the first section states that "A 2018 paper by three Yale School of Management professors estimated that the illegal immigrant population was in the range of 16 million to 29 million..." - clearly that 'measure' would be higher than the 2007 total. Therefore, the claim "By all measures" is contradicted... Birtig ( talk) 16:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Not how it works. Estimations of the illegal immigrant population are just that, estimates, and each has their own methodology; comparing different estimates, with different methodologies, is comparing apples to oranges. (That estimate in particular is noted to use an unusual methodology that got double the number of other sources - but the important part is that even putting that aside, you could only compare them to earlier estimates that used the same methodology. Note that their conclusion is A 2018 paper by three Yale School of Management professors yielded similar trajectories of the illegal immigrant population, with peak growth in the 1990s and early 2000s followed by a plateau from approximately 2008 onward, ie. they also think it peaked the same time everyone else does, they just think that the total was higher the entire time due to different methodologies. They're not saying it suddenly doubled, they're using a counting method that produces about twice the number everyone else does.) This is the sort of reason why doing such comparisons is considered WP:SYNTH and WP:OR - we rely on the expertise of reliable sources with the appropriate background to tell us what the numbers mean and what the overall agreement among scholars is. In short, if you think it's so obvious that they're saying the numbers have increased, it should be easy to find a reliable source saying so explicitly. -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

You misunderstand - I have no view on whether the number has increased or not . I am merely pointing out that you can't state "By all measures..." and then have, later, a measure that provides a higher total than the 2007 figure. That contradicts. Can I suggest that the easy solution would be to change the claim to "By all comparable measures.." Birtig ( talk) 16:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 21:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC) reply

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2015 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT ( talk) on 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply