Talk:Myths and facts about immigration to the United States

OK, this is a mess. Its a formatting disaster! 204.11.191.16 10:49, 30 November 2007 (EST) I've copied this out to reformat it - there's newlines & things all over it if you've exact refs for th equotes they'd be usefull Susan  purrrrr ...  10:56, 30 November 2007 (EST) Next time anyone posts something like this, they can format it their bloody selves. Can someone make those hashes work properly please. I'm formatted out. Susan purrrrr ...  12:17, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Might you like to go in & clean it up now? Susan purrrrr ...  11:28, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 * Thanks, it looks a lot better now but its still a bit ugly. 204.11.191.17


 * Well! - thanks for the damnation with faint praise! Susan  purrrrr ...  12:20, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 * OK, I've had a go. Is it better with numbering and bullets?--Bobbing up 12:27, 30 November 2007 (EST)


 * It gives me great pain to say yes. I do like it but some actual references for the assertions would be nice. How about someone does something similar for the UK? Susan  purrrrr ...  12:52, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Is my See also addition okay? --Edgerunner  76 12:42, 30 November 2007 (EST)
 * Yup! (as far as I can see) Susan  purrrrr ...  12:52, 30 November 2007 (EST)

For what it's worth, this is a really good article to have here. Glad you all put it up, now i have a place to send all the "anti immigration" folks I run across. --Waiting for Godot 12:49, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Catch-22
People complain when immigrants keep to themselves and hang out with their own kind rather than integrating, but when they do try to integrate, people complain that they don't like having all these Mexicans hanging around. Tisane (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Or smelly Irish people... 08:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

1996 welfare reform
President Clinton did not "kill" welfare, in that he did not restore the pre-1932 or pre-1964 state of affairs. 03:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that he "fixed" it in the sense that he forced welfare recipients to be a bit more responsible by reducing the time you could receive welfare payments. 03:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The bill put a hard cap on lifetime benefits. 03:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understood that the reforms were chiefly to target the people who were "stuck" receiving welfare, whose finances actually improved after the reforms. 03:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need to do some research to refresh our memories? 03:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"The bill's primary requirements and effects included:


 * Ending welfare as an entitlement program;
 * Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
 * Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds;
 * Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births.
 * Enhancing enforcement of child support."

03:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The important point being that while it did not "kill" welfare, it did remove that part of it as would be most useful to the bugaboo figure in question. 03:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

New one: Illegal immigration leads to more crime
Conservatives will frequently bring up local stories about illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes (especially gang violence) or drunk driving or traffic accidents. AP (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be a highligthed article
I'm not sure what quality we look for, but this topic is great, and this is the kind of thing i could link to. "I hate illegals, they fuck up the country" oh yeah - here, read this. What needs to happen to this article to make it a front page article?--En attendant Godot 15:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article seems to conflate immigration and illegal immigration. The two are very different issues, and I feel this needs to be addressed before considering highlighting it. 16:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) here are the "official critera" for making it gold/cover. As we haven't had a "new" gold article in some time, I approve of getting another one. Тy Talk 16:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Delta (that) it has a lot of work, but i think this is a good topic/candidate (after the work) for a new gold. It really is the kind of thing I think would make a valuable entry point.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, can you think of any ways to improve this of the top of your head? Тy communications wire 15:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The footnotes should be actual footnotes rather than the "go search for it yourself, fuckers" style they're in now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It also isn't complete, and has several comments in the markup that were apparently never followed through. Тy Yarrr 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The point about the footnotes is very valid - finding real facts about immigration amongst the dross on the tubes is tough - we shouldn't be asking our readers to do it. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Illegal immigrants also pay tax through payroll taxes. I believe the contribution to welfare programs they make through that is larger than the benefits they receive. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiki has an entire article on this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There are days I wonder why we don't just say "oh, fuck it, go to wikipedia". ;-)  But that's why I like our "no holds barred, tell it like it is" style of article that actually SAYS something about how the world could or should work.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  16:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Title change
We should focus this on "illegal immigations", to deal with the issue of conflagration just brought up. I doubt many if any "right wing" "tea party" types are harping on my husband from France, i think they care about 1) the mexicans, 2) some terriorists, and 3) the damned mexicans. I would (pedantic as it might be) front each "immigratio" with "illegal immigration", even in the title.  En attendant Godot  15:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. Тy communications wire 15:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We have an article on illegal immigration already -- do we want to merge the two/make this a subsection of it? BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 15:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument against merging is that this could be a very RW "fight the good fight" entry point. A link we give when people say "yeah, but they take my taxes" "yeah, but they use my health care".  I really like this as a stand alone "fight the myths" artcile.  personally, i think that is RW's single biggest strength.  links that directly address idiots out there who say "yeah, but dino prints were found", "Yeah, but the media is a liberal whore hound".[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  15:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your point. I see it. But getting "illegal" in the title might make more people find the article on search engine that begins with "G," right? So what to do? BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 15:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You do want that, right? though it is a long title.  one contemplates!  But one needs morning Chai, or one's brain says "oh, look pretty kittah... let's google for more pretty kittahs".  which is not very useful.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

==Style Question== I was thinking that for the "myth" maybe we use the term "illegals" like the right does. I am going to change the first one only, and give a fat yea or nea if it sets you as "fun" or "oh my god what the hell did you do?"En attendant Godot 15:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Never mind. I'm reading carefully, and this is more convoluted than I though.
 * "Illegal" immigration: Facts and myths? Or something? BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 16:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, cept there's lots on legal immigration as a drain. i'm just right now using comments to sort out which "myth" is for which "group" (illegal/legal/both).  hum... i do like the title you suggest, though.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">En attendant Godot  16:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To what extent is "illegal immigration" used as a code word by nativists to mean ALL immigration, or at least all immigration for anywhere besides the white english-speaking First World, maybe -- those Canadians are okay and Aussies are all hot and have sexy accents, so they can stay, too. If it's the case that people are talking about "everyone" when they say "illegal," then subsuming them together int he title in bitch quotes makes sense. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

myth of illegals taking away American jobs
Obviously you haven't applied for a job, including housekeeping jobs, only to have been turned down and come to find non-U.S. citizens working that job.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 67.149.181.212 / talk / contribs 11:54, 18 March 2014‎ (UTC)

That is anecdotal evidence and possibly confirmation bias so it shouldn't effect the article, just so everybody else knows Kosterortiizbrock (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Another country heard from
Novel idea... present both sides of the story. Illegal immigrants are taking large amounts of welfare... the US govt. is not enforcing US law on illegal immigrations... illegal immigrants are not paying taxes... Brown Patriot 22:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice that this article is about "immigration," with "illegal immigration" being only a part of that. The "not paying taxes" part is already addressed in the article. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * this don't really add anything to the discussion but: it's the very first thing after the introduction. --NonPerson (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Fragment removal
Hi, I found this sentence fragment which doesn't make any sense: " transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years." It is now removed. Have a nice day!

Identity Theft/IRS
The AP story linked at note 3 is not about anyone "targeted by the IRS [unless that part was lost when Lois Lerner's hard drive crashed] for failure to pay taxes." If anything the IRS was quite accommodating in issuing the victim an Individual Tax Identification Number while they try to untangle the mess. This is the same single incident (victim Candida Gutierrez, a Texas teacher) that dominates the results of a search for the exact phrase "total identity theft". The offender used Gutierrez's full name and Social Security Number in Kansas for twelve years, which included a mortgage, a foreclosure, and the use of Gutierrez's name on the birth certificates of two newborn children. This extreme outlier is a weak counterpoint to the collection of up to US$ 20 billion over eight years in the Social Security Administration’s “suspense file," which is largely attributable to payments on behalf of aliens without work authorization committing synthetic identity theft. - 74.197.242.103 (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point - in fact I think you've caught some un-reverted vandalism from back in August. Thanks. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Children of Immigrants
I removed the bit about how deporting illegals en masse would mean deporting children who are themselves natural-born, or rendering them effectively orphaned. Why? In the first case, that's just life. You go where your parents go until you're old enough to go where you want. In both cases, we send people who rob a bank to prison regardless of what it might mean for their children. Sorry, but that's a case where the rule of law has to take precedence over a child's welfare. If this is an exception to that principle, that's a whole separate debate. But ultimately, this is an argument from adverse consequences, and we're better than that. The point could be used in a genuinely compelling argument, but on its own, it's pretty weak sauce.--ShorinBJ (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the fact it's life, it's also a consequence of blanket deportation. If the only objection is "but that's how it is sometimes it sucks" i don't see why it needs to be removed from a list of problems with blanket deportation. -- Mie kal  00:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If, in fact, one accepts that people who break the law ought not to be allowed to get a free pass, the fact that they have kids is irrelevant. Turn it around. Why does the fact that their natural-born kids would have to go with them mean that illegal immigrants should get to stay. Or yet another angle: their kids, if not natural-born, would definitely have to leave if illegals were deported en masse. It's no fault of their own, any more than it's the fault of the natural-borns. It sucks just as much for them. Some were brought over as babies, so they grew up as part of American culture. The only difference between the two groups is one is legally permitted to be here. If you want to tug on the heartstrings of people by pointing out those poor kids who were born here and are now having their lives upended, why ignore the ones who were brought here with no choice in the matter and are now having their lives upended?
 * BTW, I'm not aware that every edit must be preceded by discussion and a consensus. You need a better reason than that to revert me, I'm quite sure, so I'm putting it back.--ShorinBJ (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You realise you are talking about throwing a US citizen out of the country? 01:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not technically. I'm talking about throwing their parents out of the country (BTW, I'm not in favor of this, children or no children). Deporting a non-citizen is something the US has every right to do, and sometimes good reasons to do. It just happens that they take their kids with them when they go. Which is their right. Now, I've made a cogent argument as to why that line should not be there. I've yet to see a decent counterargument. Pointing out that it's a consequence of blanket deportation doesn't answer the point that an argument from adverse consequences is weak. If one accepts that the parents ought to be deported, then the impact on the children is sad but ultimately irrelevant. As I said in my bank robber example, we don't let the fact that they have kids stop us from sending them to prison. Actually, the consequences are less dire with deportation; at least the kids can stay with their parents. So stop reverting my edits unless you can make your case as I've made mine.--ShorinBJ (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a qualification, but I really don't agree with the sentiment that "If one accepts that the parents ought to be deported, then the impact on the children is sad but ultimately irrelevant." It's exactly the kind of aspect which is relevant, because it pertains to the welfare of children who are citizens. This is indeed why some countries (I don't know if the U.S. is one of them) have legislation banning the expulsion of parents whose children are citizens because it would either constitute de facto expulsion of citizens (i.e. the children) or (again de facto) a particularly strict form of removal of child custody. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so my question is, why doesn't this logic extend to children whose parents are being sent to prison for having committed a crime? This happens all the time, and it's been acknowledged as a huge problem, yet I've heard no suggestion that the parents should get a pass. Would you argue they should? Forget bank robbery, since that's a good deal worse of a crime than coming into the country illegally. How about tax evasion? It's pretty much a victimless crime, unless you count the citizens who would have benefited from the money you didn't pay, and even if you owe $10 million, that works out to three cents per person. So if it would render their children essentially orphans, do they not have to do time?
 * If no one can answer this, "Won't someone think of the children?" carries little weight. If you believe the parents shouldn't be deported anyway (i.e. it's not logistically feasible, parts of the economy would collapse), it's moot. If you think that, given all other considerations, the parents should be deported, the points I've outlined here are gonna be your answer to the children argument. It convinces nobody who isn't already convinced.--ShorinBJ (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of my reason for supporting abolition of the prison system is exactly because it robs children of a life with their parents. So, yeah, I would argue not for removing the argument from this page but for inserting it in our page on prisons, if we had one. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @ShorinBJ: The first rather obvious difference between prison and expulsion (to me at least) is that prison sentences are usually of a set duration, unlike expulsion which is permanent. The second is that even in case of life sentences, there are visiting hours etc. - how does this compare with expulsion? Do you suggest U.S. state sponsored trips for either the children or deported parents to arrange for "visiting hours"? The third is that often "only" one parent is incarcerated, but in cases where both parents (or in single-parent families that one parent) are in jail, children may be made wards of the state or some other part of the family. Again, this means that they're not simply tossed out of the country. However, consider the problems of an immediate massive influx of such wards of the state, because it's unlikely that there is family (with citizenship) who could care for these U.S. citizens . And Shorin, you keep skirting the core issue: that these children really are U.S. citizens, so it's not merely a case of "Won't someone think of the children?", no matter how much you try to frame it this way. If I was arguing that it was cruel to throw out children without U.S. citizenship because they had their entire social network in the U.S. (I think it is cruel, but I also think it's an ethical/moral issue rather than a legal one), that would be a "Won't someone think of the children?"-argument. This is not what my argument is about. Rather than the fact that these U.S. citizens are children, the salient feature is their U.S. citizenship and whether its accompanying right of residence can be de facto annulled by tossing out their parents. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That they're US citizens isn't relevant. I have every right to own a luxury yacht, but that doesn't mean I get to have one -- I have to acquire the money to buy it. Likewise, that a child was born here and has a right to live here doesn't guarantee that they will live here. My cousin lived in Germany for several years, not because her citizenship was in question, but because she was a minor and her parents moved there. If their parents take them to Mexico or wherever, there's nothing in that that offends their rights. As soon as they're financially/legally independent, they can come right back to the US.
 * However, this brings up one point. The logistics of suddenly having all these minors that need to be cared for, so I'm going to add a bit reflecting that.--ShorinBJ (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "As soon as they're financially/legally independent, they can come right back to the US. " You have a rather idealistic view of the prospects of children of illegal immigrants who are forced back to mexico. Also, Question, since being a US citizen doesn't actually matter to you on deportation, can we deport you as well? Afterall, just because you have the right to live here doesn't mean you will. -- Mie kal  23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking on your statement of: "Sorry, but that's a case where the rule of law has to take precedence over a child's welfare."
 * You may be unaware of the application of US family law in such cases. The natural-born children would be orphaned, as said children would be granted a guardian ad litem under "best interests of the children" doctrine in every state of the Union. The interests of the child, by legal policy, override the interests of the parents.
 * Of course, this generally causes immigration deportation to be overriden, as what is in the best interests of the natural-born child is NOT that they be dumped into a foster home. It is in the best interest of the child for the family to remain intact, absent a reason to separate the family; deportation of the child would also be an abrogation of the child's rights of citizenship. This is why the illegally-present parents are allowed to stay with their natural-born child in the USA; it's the lesser evil of all legal outcomes when the interests of the child are taken into account.
 * As for why this doctrine does not apply to the children of American citizens who have committed a crime, it is because illegal immigrants have not actually committed a crime by being resident on USA soil without permission. It's a civil infraction, not a criminal infraction. --Castaigne (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. So the situation is already covered by law. Even if mass deportation were implemented, it would apply only to those illegals who do not have a natural-born child.--ShorinBJ (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's how it would end up going, yeah. Combine rights of a citizen + best interests of the child = no, it would violate both to deport the parents and orphan the child, and would be worse to deport the child with parents. That's in accordance with existing cases. No reason to think that would change.
 * (This does not even get into the issue of how it costs more to deport someone than it does to let them stay. Opportunity cost, limited available budgets, and so on.) --Castaigne (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to take it for granted that to live anywhere but the US is a horrible fate. Maybe that's not what you're saying, but that's what it reads like.--ShorinBJ (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If the preferred alternative to living wherever im from is the crappy life of an illegal immigrant in america, then i would say it's a horrible fate to have to be wherever i'd otherwise be. -- Mie kal  17:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @ShorinBJ: The comparison with both the luxury yacht and your cousin is fallacious. The first conflates the right to own something with actually possessing it. To correctly reflect the situation, your luxury yacht example would have to be something like "Sure you have the right to own a luxury yacht, but since your parents are illegal immigrants, we'll impound the yacht you already possess for 10 years after which you can perhaps get it back". The reason your luxury yacht example misses the point is because right of residence means the right to reside in the U.S. without being forced to leave, which is exactly what deportation of the parents would likely force the children to do. Contrast this with your cousin who followed parents who left voluntarily. Your cousin was following parents who decided to live abroad for a while and could return at their leisure - not parents being deported against their will without any (legal) option to return. Again, when deporting the parents of these U.S. citizens you might not in a very narrow de jure sense being deporting these minor U.S. citizens, but de facto it's likely to result in deportation, due to forcing children into choosing between their legal right of residence and being effectively orphaned. So yes, citizenship is relevant. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your...adjustment to my example makes zero sense. And the comparison with the luxury yacht doesn't conflate the right to own something with actually possessing it, it draws a distinction between the two. The exact opposite of what you said. And of course the difference with my cousin is that her parents left voluntarily. That's the entire difference. No analogy is perfect, and you can't just say, "There's a difference! The existence of any difference at all renders the comparison invalid!" You have to explain why the difference matters. And yes, the result would be de facto deportation or orphaning, which is where, as written above, the "best interests of the children" doctrine kicks in.--ShorinBJ (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm ...
Possibly not unconnected to this edit?

Plagiarism concerns
I am concerned much of this article is derived from this American Immigration Council article. AP (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal beef with article
Most Americans like immigrants. 1 in 7 are foreign born, and the vast majority are descendants of immigrants. Myself included.

The problem with this article is that most Americans are upset with illegal immigration. Saying "well, legal immigrants contribute X" does nothing to answer the question "are illegal immigrants good or bad for the country". StickySock (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Were the people who came to the what would later become the US legal immigrants? Did they fill out the proper forms with the Cherokee or the Seminoles? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What you say: "Europeans illegally immigrated too; just ask the Cherokee!"
 * What I hear: "If we allow illegal immigrants, we'll turn out like the Cherokee!" CorruptUser (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait; there is a Mexican war helicopter named white guy? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost)))  (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's "Apache". "Cherokee" is the jeep. CorruptUser (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this relevant to cite from?
Thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Inciteful input from a BoN
This is like cow vomit, someone mixing ILLEGAL immigrants and LEGAL immigrants.


 * What's the point of separating illegal aliens from legal aliens when they're all hiding amongst us anyways? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Remember
We, eventually, are all immigrants from 'somewhere in Africa.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Leprosy
is more likely to be brought in by hordes of immigrant red squirrels. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The Economics of Immigration

 * Don't watch this — you'll become part of the problem! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't watch this — you'll become part of the problem! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's a goldmine
Their description reads "Immigration resistance", by which I believe they paradoxially mean "Anti-immigration resistance": https://twitter.com/alt_uscis (they're the same people Trump tried to doxx). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Multiple problems
This page could be really interesting, but instead has a lot of issues. I could try to fix them, but it would be quite a lot of changes. Hence, I first prefer to list some of these problems here and hear other opinions.

Problems: <ol> <li>Many "myths" are confuted by exaggerating them or by taking them so literally that they are plainly false. For example: <ul> <li>"Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes" is confuted by saying that "Immigrants pay property taxes via home ownership/rental/sales tax...". OK, but even the most anti-immigration person would agree that illegal immigrants pay some taxes. After all, with the same logic, one could say that Mafia mobsters pay taxes, because they pay property taxes etc. The real claim to discuss is that "illegal immigrants pay less taxes than U.S. citizens".</li> <li>"Immigrants don’t want to learn English or become Americans" has among its confutations that immigrants from Latin America are already Americans. This is just a silly semantic play, of course the "myth" by "Americans" means "U.S. citizen"...</li> </ul> </li>

<li>Illegal and legal immigrations are often mixed up, while most of the "myths" refer to illegal immigrants. For example: <ul> <li>"Immigrants come here to get "welfare"" is confuted also by saying that: "To immigrate into the US, you must have a sponsor..." hence, suddenly, the page starts talking only about legal immigrants. But the complains against immigrants and welfare are mostly referred to illegal immigrants.</li> </ul> </li>

<li>Many confutations are too weak, or not a confutation at all. For example: <ul> <li>"Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes" says "The amount of money contributed by undocumented immigrants to Social Security has been estimated between $7 and $15 billion annually" which means nothing without knowing how many immigrants are we talking about and how much the same number of U.S. citizens pay for Social Security.</li> <li>"Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries" says "if you are going to complain that immigrants send money back to their home countries, you have to also raise a stink that the rich offshore their money in foreign banks"; and who says that this is not also a problem? And then it continues with "Money immigrants send to the old home arguably keeps the people from turning red or green." and this is simply not a confutation of the claim.</li> <li>"Immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy" says "Immigrants actually create jobs" but has no sources supporting that claim.</li> <li>"Immigrants don’t want to learn English or become Americans" says "Within ten years of arrival, more than 75% of immigrants speak English well". Come on... that after 10 (!) years about the 75% of the immigrants speak English well is actually a claim in support of the "myth".</li> <li>"Illegal immigrants are the source of many communicable diseases" says that immigrants do not bring leprosy. Good, but what about the other disease? Some data about the infective diseases of immigrants VS U.S. citizen should be reported.</li> <li>"Illegal immigrants cause crime" says "Only 8% of the prison population are immigrants, which also includes legal immigrants as well." and again this means nothing without making a comparison with U.S. citizens. Since the number of immigrants is less than the number of U.S. citizens, it is not surprising that in prison they are a minority.</li> </ul> </li> </ol> McLaghing (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Center for Immigration Studies
This edit by cites the "Center for Immigration Studies" (CIS). CIS has been identified as an extreme-right hate group and questionable source by mediabiasfactcheck.com. Hopefully this was an honest mistake by McLaghing. CowHouse (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First, the study of the CIS uses data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, and that survey has been done by the United States Census Bureau (USCB), the principal agency of the U.S. Federal Statistical System. I hope that we agree that the USCB is not a questionable source. Of course, it could be that CIS bended in some way the data of the USCB to support a false claim. But then, instead of reverting immediately my the edit, it would have been better to read (on the talk page or on the article page itself) how the CIS made a wrong analysis; and this should be very easy if CIS is such a blinded by hate organization.
 * Second, if we have to believe to mediabiasfactcheck, then according to it RationalWiki has a left-center bias and in particular "often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation." McLaghing (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They also stated that RW's factual reporting was high.GrammarCommie (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have some comment on the actual problem with CIS study? McLaghing (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was merely added something that you omitted when you accused MFC of being against RW. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "...when you accused MFC of being against RW" I did not. McLaghing (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "...:Second, if we have to believe to mediabiasfactcheck, then according to it RationalWiki has a left-center bias and in particular "often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation."" Actually you did indeed accuse MFC of dislike and/or distrust of RW, intentionally or not. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the information is accurate, you should not need to go to a hate group with little credibility for a citation.
 * Of course, it could be that CIS bended in some way the data of the USCB to support a false claim. Yes, that is exactly what they are accused of doing. From : "The Center for Immigration Studies has been criticized for periodically publishing reports deemed to be misleading and using poor methodology by scholars on immigration"
 * The description you copied is how mediabiasfactcheck.com describes every left-center source, so I don't see your point (other than whataboutism). More importantly, RationalWiki is rated "high" for factual reporting, whereas CIS is not. CowHouse (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have found, in a few minutes, a good objection to the CIS study. It looks at the data and explain why CIS overestimated the usage of welfare by immigrant (although it agrees that immigrants still use more welfare than citizens). Now, that is the kind of rebuttal which I would like to hear on RW, not a "it's a hate group so it must be surely wrong, never mind the data..." By the way, almost a week ago, I have posted a lot of detailed comments of why I think the page has a lot of issues: nobody said nothing. Today I have cited CIS: reverted without explanation. I do not think there is really some kind of constructive conversation here... McLaghing (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "it's a hate group so it must be surely wrong, never mind the data..." I never said this. You're trying to twist this to make it seem controversial for me to object to using hate groups as sources of fact.
 * "reverted without explanation" False. My edit summary said "See talk" where I explained my edit.
 * In short, you cited a study that you now acknowledge was not accurate. You should investigate your sources more thoroughly in the future. CowHouse (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote "without explanation" because just saying that some study comes from a "hate group", without looking at the data, in my opinion is not a valid explanation. I would have accepted a rebuttal of the data analysis, which I have later found by myself. McLaghing (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, if someone cites a study and their source is a hate group, I'm just going to revert. It hurts the credibility of RationalWiki if we cite sources like CIS. Is your position that it's totally acceptable to cite a study by a hate group if the study in question has not been criticised? CowHouse (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any White people that advocate for a standard immigration policy are a "far right hate group" according to these anti-White liars. Wangmeister (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you were to actually focus on immigration as a whole instead of focusing on migrants from countries with predominantly less than pale skin tones (countries such as Canada and Russia send immigrants too) we would not accuse you of racism, merely xenophobia and generic bigotry.
 * PS The "anti-racist is code for anti-white" dog whistle won't work here. GrammarCommie (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you ever push fake statistics to argue for immigration to Turkey or China? They're pretty much 100% non White aren't they? Where's the immigration and diversity? Wangmeister (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You do realise how many Syrian refugees are in Turkey, right? CowHouse (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But do you ever push fake statistics on Turks to try to confuse them into accepting White economic immigration? The Turks massacred and deported all of the Whites after they invaded right? Where's the diversity? Shouldn't you be practicing your fake statistics on them? Wangmeister (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "But do you ever push fake statistics on Turks to try to confuse them into accepting White economic immigration?" Have you stopped beating your wife? CowHouse (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You see how dishonest you are? That isn't an analogous question at all. We already established you push fake statistics, hide relevant statistics, and only to promote immigration to White countries. Very suspicious behavior. Wangmeister (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Debate manual for cranks and pseudoscientists;
 * Lie.
 * Double down on your lie.
 * Accuse your opponent of lying.
 * Rinse and repeat.
 * GrammarCommie (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "We already established you push fake statistics, hide relevant statistics, and only to promote immigration to White countries." Remind me, when did this happen? Can you please point to when I said any of these things? CowHouse (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Today’s immigrants are different than those of 100 years ago
The myth Today’s immigrants are different than those of 100 years ago is too generic.

Of course today's immigration is different than that of 100 year ago: different countries, different cultures, different economic situation, different jobs... So what should be disproved? In the section in question it is argued that there are some (weak) analogies between the two waves of immigration, but analogies do not meant that two things are not different.

I have removed that section as meaningless.

McLaghing (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing
This might help for the purpose of sourcing. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EgWstl9mj74J:https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/documents/files/022851_mythsfacts_2016_report_final.pdf

Try to be more rational about this
This article is mediocre compared to the rest of the wiki which is very good.


 * Illegal immigrants, as well as legal immigrants with little job skills or language skills often take the work seen by most Americans as "beneath them."

Where is the evidence of this? It's not a matter of Americans thinking those jobs are beneath them, it's the fact that the employers don't want to pay a living wage for those jobs.

Neoliberalism combined with open borders is just plain stupid and it's great that both the left and the right are beginning to come to terms with this.