Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals/Archive 3

Status of Policy

The 1st sentence of the lede suggests DACA was a formally established policy of the US Government. In fact it was a policy memo of the intent to ignore existing immigration policy ("prosecutoral discretion" - https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf) by the Obama administration, with an end date in 2019. The Trump administration provided a gradual end to this unratified policy. (http://time.com/4927495/donald-trump-statement-daca-rescind/)

Status of Immigrants

I would recommend changing several instances of the term "Illegal immigrants" to the more accurate and less biased "undocumented immigrants". Specifically, illegal is a status that can be applied to actions, but not to persons. The act of entering a country without permission or of overstaying one's visa could be considered "Illegal Immigration", but a person who has done so is simply "undocumented". No human being is illegal.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Anchor Babies should be included as a description of illegal aliens who abuse birth right citizenship

Article needs more honest language which is in common use. "Illegals", "anchor babies" and "alien invaders" are all the appropriate terms to use. Please edit article to use correct terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A845:CD00:9D25:EFF6:81B7:BFD3 (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The First sentence of Paragraph 3 incorrectly states that Trump has said DACA is bad for the economy

   "President Trump has made a number of remarks about the impact of DACA on the U.S. economy, some of which have been proven false by economists"

None of the citations provided, including the two refs immediately following the sentence, state anywhere that Trump said DACA was bad for the economy.

The first ref is a TIME Magazine article, entitled Here's What President Trump Has Said About DACA in the Past. None of the quotes in that article mention the economy at all nor the article itself. This citation doesn't work here whether Trump is mentioned or not

The second ref, from The Observer: End of DACA Spells Trouble for Economy, mostly centers around Trump's campaign promises to improve the Economy in general, then makes the case that ending DACA would actually hurt the economy because it would cost so many billions of dollars to deport all 800,000 DACA recipients, which, considering the fact that the plan was never to deport DACA recipients in the first place, is completely irrelevant.

As far as economic benefit is concerned, and I'm not saying DACA did or did not benefit the economy, but the only argument this article makes with regard to the claim that DACA does benefit the economy is that DACA recipients on average are making 42% higher wages now than they were before, citing this study, which in turn means they are paying more money in taxes, which is good for the economy. Now, idk what part of the author's butt 42% came from, but unless I'm missing something painfully obvious, that figure did not come from that study. The closest thing I could see even resembling that claim was a projected 10 year annual wage growth among DACA recipients of $36,232 in 2017 to $48,957 in 2028.

Last, the study references indefatigably the Medicare and Social Security contributions made from the wages of DACA students, but never once mentions taxes. Presumably, the reason for this figures absence is that DACA recipients do not pay taxes. In other words this article published by The Observer is just... it's awful. The entire thing is wrong, or its only right about things that are irrelevant. I've never read The Observer before, are we even sure this is a verifiable source? Because that article is an abomination.

So, not only does the first sentence incorrectly assert that Trump said DACA was bad for the economy (or at the very least, not in those articles), but goes on to say that Trump's non-existent claims have been proven false by by non-existent "economists." I can assure you, who ever wrote that Oberver article is no economist.

Barring a better reference regarding Trump's supposed claims here, I'm gonna go ahead and remove that first sentenceBlob Blobbed (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Controversy

Children of legal migrants won’t qualify as Dreamers under DACA protection because they entered the country legally. This is highlighted as the biggest contradiction in US immigration policy by many advocates of legal immigrants. 12.32.164.3 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Hello, I am a student using Wikipedia to do a research product on DACA.

I am very interested specifically in the Impact section of the page, and what is included or rejected from it. I found little to no information about how The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals impacts undocumented immigrants and dreamers, and more about how the action impacts America in general. I am wondering why there is such little information about how the current state of the act is effecting undocumented immigrants, specifically in terms of mental health. There are a few sentences concerning how recipients are positively impacted by DACA, but no information on changes in mental health since DACA was repealed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slampoet17 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Slampoet17, and thanks for your interest. Can you link to some sources about "changes in mental health since DACA was repealed"? We can only include things that have been significantly covered in reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2018

69.201.177.66 (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

hello there i need to edit pls

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gulumeemee (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

New section dedicated to the predictions on the impacts of the repeal of DACA

To summarize: it is too soon to declare the exact impacts, however I have found many credible sources that have covered their predictions on the outcome of the DACA repeal based on previous research comparing the mental mindset of individuals before and during their time as a DACA recipient. I think this information is important to include on the page because it portrays both the fear present in those in which the repeal affects, but also the implications regarding access to mental health as well as the impact on our formal and public healthcare systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slampoet17 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone touch up the language used in this article?

Hi everyone. I'm not a frequent editor of Wikipedia so please excuse any mistakes I make. That said, in my opinion parts of this article fall short of the standards for writing on Wikipedia. I tried my hand, though as I said I do not frequently edit Wikipedia. Maybe someone who knows a bit more about Wikipedia's preferred style can take the edits further than I did. This is an important issue, and I feel that the language this article uses should reflect that. Thanks! 76.169.250.203 (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect and misleading weasel words in the first sentence

"DACA was the first of a number of subsequent efforts in the U.S. House and Senate to provide an opportunity for certain illegal immigrants who were brought to the US as children to attend college and eventually become permanent residents of the United States."

Actions are illegal. People cannot be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.232.75 (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

According to Dictionary.com illegal immigrants is acceptable and is defined as "a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, especially a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson. Compare resident alien" (Dictionary.com.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralityethos146 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, I am a college student who is interested in editing the "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" page here on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralityethos146 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC) 3 edit I would like to make for the time being are: 1. Ending DACA "would reduce economic growth by $280 billion over the next decade, or about a half-percentage point a year. CAP says GDP would be whittled by $460 billion" and "would culminate in $105 billion in reduced economic output in 2022" (Davidson.) will be added to the Wikipedia section of the DACA article on Wikipedia that talks about the impact of DACA on the economy. 2. adding the source Davidson, Paul. "Analyst Say Ending DACA would Hurt Economy, Hiring." USA Today, 2017, pp. 02 3. adding "ninety-one percent of the 800,000 immigrants [using DACA], or about 730,000, are employed, according to a survey led by the University of California-San Diego, the left-leaning Center for American Progress (CAP) and the National Immigration Law Center" to the Wikipedia section of the DACA article on Wikipedia that talks about the impact of DACA on the economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralityethos146 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this reference, Neutralityethos146. I have added the information about the rate of employment of DACA recipients. I decided not to add the estimates of the effect on the economy because several such estimates are already included in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Awesome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralityethos146 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC) More edits I would like to make include... 4.“rescinding DACA will affect workers in the restaurant industry across the nation” because “the restaurant industry relies heavily on immigrant workers” (Dykes.) “[according] to Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, an advocacy organization, nearly 1 in 4 workers in the industry is foreign-born,” and that “based on estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center, ROC suggests that half of these workers may be undocumented” (Dykes.) should be added to the impact section 5. Information from Verdis's testimonial in “DACA’s Cloudy Future Casts A Shadow On A Young Chef’s Dream” should be added to the rescission and legal challenges section. 6. adding the source: Dykes, Allanah. DACA's Cloudy Future Casts A Shadow on A Young Chef's Dream. NPR, Washington, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralityethos146 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC) I have added 4. and 6. but would like the community's input on whether to add 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralityethos146 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Decided not to include edit 5. I have just added more edits... 7.Added a Kansas part to the reaction section of the page. 8. Added the sentences: More than 6,800 people are enrolled in DACA. Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, who helped lead opposition to DACA, said the Obama program was a “cruel illusion.” His opinion is shared by most Kansan politicians. to the Kansas part of the reaction section. 9. Added the source http://www.cjonline.com/news/local/state-government/2017-09-05/kansas-officials-react-trump-administration-s-plan-phase-out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutralityethos146 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC) 10. Is DACA only a temporary solution? Added to the controversy section.

Unclear on activity

The status is a bit unclear here about the recission of the expansion vs the repeal of all of it, and about the activity on the executive side. Can anyone clarify the status of those two and is the INS currently taking new applicants or not ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Replacement of the word "alien"

I would like to propose that the world "alien" be replaced by immigrant in all instances. The word alien simply shows too much bias against these people. Synonyms to alien include: unfamiliar, unknown, strange, and peculiar. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view as it inappropriately portrays these individuals. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 19:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The lede should cover the existing research on DACA

The research takes up a substantial part of the body, and is by far among the most notable aspects of the article (a lot of other content in the article covers minuatiae). Peer-reviewed research is typically the best sources of available, and given that the DACA article is blessed with nearly every study published on the subject (I know because I added most of them after a systematic search and review in 2017), and replete with expert assessments on DACA, it's a shame to throw it out of the lede. The text was concise, encyclopedic and extremely helpful to readers. It's a topic rife with misinformation, and the lede to this article did a decent job clarifying to readers interested in the subject what the existing research actually said about the topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here to discuss, Snooganssnoogans; I was about to do the same. Here is my problem with that third paragraph: It is very well written, but it contains 10 reference citations, and it summarizes research in a way that the article itself does not. That's not how we do the lede. I moved it to the body of the article, as a lead-in to the “Impact” section; you moved it back to the lede. How about this: let's do both. Keep a summary or paraphrase in the lede, with few or no references, and ALSO have this nicely-referenced summary of the research in the article text - preferably as a lead-in to the Impact section (where the subsections get into such a level of detail that the trees may obscure the forest). What do you think of that suggestion? --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I support your suggestion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, done. If people start objecting to the lede paragraph being entirely unreferenced we might have to add back a ref or two. Meanwhile I noticed we have the same problem with Trump's challenge to Congress, to fix it by passing the DREAM Act: A sentence with information and multiple references in the lede, nothing in the article. I'll see what I can do about that. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, done. The article was quite out of date. --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

New State of Texas v. United States opinion

This opinion (8/31/2018) denied a preliminary injunction against DACA. However, page 39 describes evidence, which the court considered convincing, that the DACA program affects non-DACA employment. Since the article, in the "Impact" section, currently says "There are no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment" a quote from this court opinion stating the contrary seems like it would be relevant to that section.

Unfortunately this PDF seems to be made of images and I can't find a version that would allow me to cut and paste anything. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Criminal record of DACA recipients

Regarding this edit: a quote - without any additional fact checking or context - is still WP:PRIMARY. It's unclear from this quote how many DACA recipients have criminal records and for what kinds of crimes. DACA recipients who have serious criminal convictions aren't eligible, so, at a minimum it seems like the article should provide more detail to explain the discrepancy. Nblund ^talk 14:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I found no reporting on this except by blatant non-RS (such as Breitbart and the Daily Caller), and by borderline RS with a well-documented pro-GOP and pro-Trump bias (such as Fox News). Numerous statements and analyses that have been released by this administration have been false or misleading, so it's important not to include anything unless it has been documented and put in context by reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Fox News is considered reliable. See WP:RSP. See also WP:BIASED. @Nblund: as you seem to be a neutral third party in this scenario, would you please consider re-adding this information to the article in whatever way you think is appropriate? The quote by Cissna doesn't have to be included, but the fact that ~60,000 DACA recipients have arrest records is worth including in the article. Thanks.Terrorist96 (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Here are the sources: Primary and Secondary--Terrorist96 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The RSP text says that Fox News "may not always be reliable... Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics". A stenography piece by Fox News, regurgitating statements and analyses by an administration that has repeatedly issued false statements and analyses (in particular on the subject of immigration[1] and crime[2]), is not good enough. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You forgot to include the link that shows they lied about this. If they did, there surely should be refutations of it, right?Terrorist96 (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be preferable to see additional good quality sourcing on this. Outside of Fox News, I don't see this mentioned in a lot of mainstream reliable sources. My personal read is that it's a little misleading - because "arrests" don't equal convictions, a small number of recipients have been arrested, and it appears that many of those arrests are for relatively minor crimes (including immigration-related offenses). Ultimately, it seems similar to other talking points that attempt to portray DACA recipients as a crime risk have been refuted by fact-checkers.

Are DACA recipients "undocumented"?

The article currently says, "The University of California... currently has approximately 4,000 undocumented students..." If a person has registered for DACA and has been given deferred action as a result, do they now have documentation? That is, I do not think it is technically appropriate to include DACA beneficiaries in statistics for "undocumented". I hope somebody who has greater awareness of the legal details related to DACA can clarify this. Pete unseth (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Even though they were granted deferred action that doesn't actually mean they were granted a status. 216.81.94.70 (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Pete unseth, this is part of the problem with using euphemisms. "Undocumented" wouldn't really apply since DACA gave them at least some form of documentation, but can't change the underlying legal problem of them being here illegally. zchrykng (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sessions stated that the DACA-eligible individuals were lawbreakers

I can not find where Sessions made this statement. I see him calling undocumented immigrants "illegal aliens," but not lawbreakers. I think this should be changed.COREXIT (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

COREXIT, I mean... that is literally what the source says. Don't know if that is the word that Sessions actually used, which should be checked. But unless you can find a source with a direct quote that contradicts this will probably have to stand. zchrykng (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

AE alert

@Awilley: (regarding the removal of the AE template) it looks like @Samsara: added the AE notice in this edit. I don't know about the other issues, but it seems like an admin should place those restrictions here if they haven't already, since it does seem to fall in to under the relevant topic area. Nblund ^talk 20:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"brought to the United States illegally as children"

Recently there has been a little back-and-forth at this article about a word in the "Eligibility" section, where the requirements are laid out in a starred list. Up to now the first requirement has been listed in this article as "Came to the United States before their 16th birthday." Today several people have added "illegally" to this requirement, and I reverted. But I hadn't really looked at the entire article, where it says "brought to the United States illegally" in several places, including the lead sentence.

Just now when I looked at the actual memo establishing the policy, Exercising Prosetorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children, I found it does not say "illegally" as one of the criteria. It just says "came to the United States under the age of sixteen"; this may leave open other ways of being in the US illegally, such as coming here legally on a visa but overstaying.

What should we do about this? Are there other Reliable Sources that do support using the word "illegally"? If not, should we remove "illegally" from the starred list? Should we remove it from other places in the article as well? Pinging @Pete unseth: who raised the issue of overstayed visas. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Pew Research Center
• Reuters "...protects hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who were brought into the country as children."
• NPR "... even though they were brought to the country illegally as children."

Many sources use the phrase "brought illegally to the United States as children" when describing DACA recipients. Using it in the article reflects reliable sources. Darryl.jensen (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Many DACA candidates were undoubtedly brought to the country illegally, not just unlawfully present. However, the issue is the specific criterion of eligibility. Paul Richter (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have replaced the references to "illegal entry" with "unlawful presence".

The original memorandum does not explicitly say they must have been brought in to the country illegally, i.e., committed (through parents) the misdemeanor crime of improper entry. In fact the bullet-pointed specific criteria do not describe any violation of law at all. But insofar as the memorandum does refer to immigration violations and deportation, it is reasonable to assume that candidates must exhibit unlawful presence, as that is the only thing that would qualify as an immigration violation warranting deportation (given that no specific violation of law is mentioned). Paul Richter (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Congressional funding

For the second time, deleted an edit that said: "Congress does not have the ability to defund DACA since the program is almost entirely funded by its own application fees rather than congressional appropriations"

First, the edit cites a column written in Vox. Vox is an opinion venue and the author (Lind) is simply stating her opinion.

Second, the comment "Congress does not have the ability to defund DACA since the program is almost entirely funded by its own application fees rather than congressional appropriations" is factually incorrect. The factually correct comment is "Congress can unfund DACA even though the program is almost entirely funded by its own application fees rather than congressional appropriations."

Third, the comment "Congress does not have the ability to defund DACA since the program is almost entirely funded by its own application fees rather than congressional appropriations" is not only factually incorrect, Lind doesn't even say that in her article. She doesn't even imply it. She simply says that the cost savings would be negligible. So you have to wonder how this edit ever managed to become part of the article.EdJF (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Somebody please write paragraph explaining the legal arguments behind blocking the repeal of DACA

I am NOT a lawyer. One president initiated DACA a by the stroke of his pen. When the next president tried to repeal it with the stroke of his pen, a number of legal appeals and courts prevented the repeal. It would be helpful if somebody could write a paragraph summarizing the legal arguments for preventing a president from repealing such a law. I am not arguing whether or not it should be repealed, merely asking for somebody to help us ordinary people understand the legal basis for the present state of this complex legal problem. I think this is an important part of understanding the present legal position of the DACA program, and therefore the legal position of those who are protected by DACA. Pete unseth (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The legal arguments are well-presented in the court decision/opinion texts themselves. Anything further analysis of those opinions shouldn't be present here, since Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 12:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This seems false:

"In 2013, legislation had comprehensively reformed the immigration system, including allowing Dreamers permission to stay in the country, work and attend school; this passed the Senate but was not brought up for a vote in the House.[19]" To say that "legislation" had done something, and then say that it wasn't passed in the House, is illogical. This sentence needs to be rephrased so as not to imply that something was actually accomplished. Slyfox4908 (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This publication falls short of Wikipedia standards

This page is missing Criticisms of the program section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.98.213 (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Such as? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request: Inaccurate titles in ref list

Someone, for some reason, changed several of the references (including the article URLS) to say "illegal immigrant" when the actual references says something else. I fixed two of these, but the article is now locked. These three refs are not corrected:

1. [3] (should be: title=Jan Brewer Signs Executive Order Denying State Benefits To Children Of Undocumented Immigrants)
2. [4] (should be: title=The Effects of DACAmentation: The Impact of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals on Unauthorized Immigrants)
3. [5] (should be: title=Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's ban on driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants likely to wind up in court)

I suppose this isn't urgent, but it also isn't accurate. Nblund ^talk 00:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 00:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Illegal vs undocumented (for the fourth time)

This has been discussed three separate times (1, 2, 3) and apparently it needs to be discussed a fourth time. The article has said illegal aliens by consensus. An IP editor replaced it with undocumented on September 25 (link) and I restored it to the previous long-standing version. Now some users want to relitigate this. Have at it...Terrorist96 (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources cited in the article generally use either "undocumented immigrants", "unauthorized immigrants" or some other language. Other variants like "people who were brought to the US illegally as children" are probably ideal, but I don't believe that "illegal immigrant" is factually correct or widely used when applied to the population we're discussing here. Nblund ^talk 23:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources using undocumented is not an argument. It still violates WP:Euphemism. Sources frequently say "passed away" but we don't use that as an argument against saying "died". And you saying if they have DACA documentation means they're not illegal fundamentally misunderstands DACA. They need the documentation *because* they are present illegally. Terrorist96 (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say "what do the sources say?" is preferable to simply asserting that "illegal immigrant" is good. I looked at fifteen sources cited in the lead. One (this court ruling) uses "illegal alien". The remainder use:

• Undocumented: 1, 2, 3 ,4,5,6 7

• Unauthorized: 1,2,3,4

• Neither ("brought to the US illegally as children" or some variant): 1,2

I think any of these alternatives are fine, but "illegal immigrant" clearly is not the term sources use, at least not in this context. The last option may be ideal because, although it is verbose, it avoids any chance of euphemistic language. Nblund ^talk 23:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

See also previous discussion on the NPOV notice board.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't notice that this was a relatively recent change, but I also don't see any indication of a consensus for "illegal immigrant". Most sources have moved away from "illegal", and sources like the Associated Press specifically recommend against using that term in reference to people who came here as children. In fairness, they also recommend avoiding the term "undocumented", but I don't see any similar problem with "unauthorized","residing in the US unlawfully" etc. There's certainly no reason to favor a contentious and rarely used term like "illegal immigrant" when we have better descriptors. Nblund ^talk 00:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Illegal alien is a racist pejorative. It's a term of affection for racists. Why would anyone opt to use that term over terms such as illegal immigrant, unauthorized immigrant or undocumented immigrant which mean exactly the same thing without the dehumanizing element? As for the other nonsense in your comment: (1) There is ZERO consensus for using the term 'illegal alien'. (2) RfCs on pages related to immigration have concluded with consensus in favor of not using this racist pejorative. It seems pretty pointless to have a new RfC every time some tendentious editor with affection for this term decides to edit-war it into a new article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Illegal should be the term used in this article. "Undocumented" is often inaccurate, and due to the fact that DACA involves both the presentation and issuance of documents, it is definitely not accurate for this program. Nuke (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

What about using "unauthorized" or avoiding either term? I have a hard time seeing how we can keep insisting that "illegal" is the preferred term here when most of our sources appear to avoid it. Nblund ^talk 00:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yet the civil offense that is for visa overstays (those with I-94), is not subject to criminal punishment and hence confusing at best to label them as "illegal". This has also been distinguished in the statement on USCIS that differentiates unlawful presence and unlawful status. There needs to be a way how this description is being defined--however should not be summarized as just "illegal" or "undocumented". Omitting and describing as "unlawful status" should suffice in my opinion. It encompasses what people are arguing here. 173.239.198.167 (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing content from the lede

A two-week old account is edit-warring out content from the lede. The content in question is a summary of peer-reviewed research on DACA, which is extensively covered in the body of the article. It is clearly important enough to be covered in the lede, and the lede should summarize the body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

All accounts were two weeks old at some time. What is your point? I am NOT editing out content, I was moving it. Edit warring is greater than or equal to 3 edits; I am stopping at two. So I have not edit warred. You, however, have violated assuming good faith on Wikipedia. "Peer-reviewed" research, especially in the social sciences, should not be treated as hard fact and including these vignettes in a summary degrades the quality of the article. You seem to be intent on including this in the lead because you want it featured prominently in the article. Why?DonCucos (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If you have a problem with peer-reviewed research, I suggest you go to Conservapedia or start a blog. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am happy to engage with you in productive discussion to make this page better. I don't think you seem to be capable of wanting to do that though.DonCucos (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add--I actually only undid one edit, not two. And I've since learned three is the maximum, not two. You undid two edits, and yet you accused me of edit warring. You have entire archives of documented edit warring behavior on your talk page, and have even been investigated by wikipedia administration for this behavior. So maybe consider your own tendencies, not mine. This was really a trivial feature of the article you are intent on keeping and I don't intend to fight you over it. I will, however, watch your userpage so I can get an alert when you are eventually banned for your behavior.DonCucos (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway." You want to push the boundaries of lede size to incorporate something I'm not even advocating removing from the article, but placing in its appropriate section. Why are you intent on pushing the boundaries on Wikipedia's own advice on this? I'll keep my thoughts on whether or not you are partisan to myself. I will tell you that I think you are making a bad article.DonCucos (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Good job, Snoogans. I suppose that's better. Let's make Wikipedia great again.DonCucos (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019

According to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Almost 8-percent of total DACA requestors (59,786 individuals) had arrest records as of the date the systems were queried, which included offenses such as assault and battery, rape, murder, and drunk driving, among others. “Requestors” includes individuals approved and denied DACA. "Of those individuals whose DACA requests were approved and had one or more arrests or apprehensions, 53,792 were arrested or apprehended prior to their most recent approval." "Approximately 13-percent (7,814) of approved DACA requestors with an arrest had an arrest after their grant was approved and prior to renewal." "199 individuals who requested DACA had 10 or more arrests. Of those, 51 most recently had DACA case status of “approved,” as of the date the systems were queried." And finally, "Of the total 888,765 DACA requestors, 797,297 had no arrests or apprehensions, and 710, 842 were approved." 75.148.100.253 (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done This is meaningless or misleading without context: if the USCIS figures are correct, they point to far fewer arrests among DACA requestors than among the general public. Nblund ^talk 15:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Crime

On Nov. 16, 2019 the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) provided at updated report on arrests and apprehensions of illegal aliens who requested Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-releases-report-arrest-histories-illegal-aliens-who-request-daca https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Static_files/DACA_Requestors_IDENT_Nov._2019.pdf

From the report "The release of this report reflects the agency’s ongoing focus on transparency. The report provides updated information on known arrests and apprehensions of DACA requestors. The data may include arrests that did not result in convictions or where the charges were dropped or otherwise dismissed.

Among the findings of the release are the following: 

Nearly 110,000 DACA requestors out of nearly 889,000 (12%) had arrest records. Offenses in these arrest records include assault, battery, rape, murder and driving under the influence. Of approved DACA requestors with an arrest, 85% (67,861) of them were arrested or apprehended before their most recent DACA approval. Of approved DACA requestors with an arrest, more than 31% (24,898) of them had more than one arrest. Of all DACA requestors, 218 had more than 10 arrests. Of those, 54 had a DACA case status of “approved” as of October 2019. “As DACA continues to be the subject of both public discourse and ongoing litigation, USCIS remains committed to ensuring transparency and that the American people are informed about those receiving DACA,” said USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli. “This agency is obligated to continue accepting DACA requests from illegal aliens as a direct result of the previous administration’s decision to circumvent the laws as passed by Congress. We hope this data provides a better sense of the reality of those granted the privilege of a temporary deferral of removal action and work authorization under DACA.” Surfdaddyo (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This administration and the characters in it are not reliable sources on the subject of immigration. Officials have on multiple instances lied and mislead about immigrants, and have altered official reports in ways that deceptively characterizes immigrants as bad when the underlying data showed something different. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Whether we trust specific sources, or not, it is still important to note their statements.Pete unseth (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead should cover economic effects of DACA

The fact that DACA doesnt adversely affect the US economy or US workers belongs in the lead. It was removed, with an editor stating it was "redundant".[6] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The word "recipients"

When we refer to "DACA recipients", it makes it seem like they are receiving some sort of financial payout. I understand that it's a commonly used term in the general public, but should this page fall into using such a misleading characterization as well? Worldbook1967 (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

I'd like to request that the two sentences before the [13] script be removed, or at least the sentence attached directly to it. The sentances have to do with crime stats regarding DACA recipients, but the statement is then drawn out to all immigrants which is misleading for what the statement prior is trying to characterize. When discussing the stats for DACA recipients, we shouldn't then change gears to all immigrants as that is a larger population size and without more clarifying language could be taken to mean that natural born citizens commit more crime than DACA recipients. If removing statements is decided to not be the best option, then perhaps some clarifying language would be best. 76.8.12.56 (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The reasons you have illustrated above are not sufficient to make this change, please explain why you want this change made with a reason showing how it will benefit the article. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 07:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong hyperlinks for Texas v. United States

All links to Texas v. United States in this article link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._United_States, which forwards to the article for the Affordable Care Act. It seems the correct link would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas, but I don't have a wikipedia account so I'm not in a position to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.89.228.89 (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 DoneTerrorist96 (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

DACA 2?

What about minors who have entered the USA after the deadlines established by Obama's decree? If there have been subsequent changes to the original law, or at least serious proposals to allow more recent arrivals, this could be usefully added to the article. Pete unseth (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2021

Add to the introductory section: "On June 16, 2021, DACA was ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who ordered the prohibition of new applications. Existing DACA recipients will not immediately lose their status." 76.71.157.66 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done - the subject of the judge's ruling has been added by another user. TungstenTime (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

References

DACA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.223.79 (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Absurd bias

This article is riddled with inherent biases. Why is editing prohibited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.81.56 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Illegal Alien Undocumented immigrant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erazo1239 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Update: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55200208 peepee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.43.225.96 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Esdrasgrimaldo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bgordime.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 19 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dee1507.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Pedrogaytan12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Josep345, Vanessa1113.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Jose2495.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Vannah 29.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: TM6031.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jshahi10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)