Talk:Immigration to the United States

Suggest splitting this article

Hello,

This article is over 300,000 bytes. The splitting guidelines suggest to split an article when it reaches or surpasses 100,000 bytes. Therefore, I think it is a good idea to split it at this time. If you oppose this, please add a comment with your rationale. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, so I support the split. deisenbe (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

i think we should split it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.81.85 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the proposal as presently described on the article page:

It has been suggested that this article be split into articles titled Demographics of immigration to the United States, Effects of immigration to the United States, Legal issues of immigration to the United States, Public opinion of immigration to the United States and United States immigration policy.

I agree that the present article is cumbersome and could benefit from being divided. It seems to me that it would be appropriate to keep law and policy in a single article, as law and policy intersect. I also wonder if effects and public opinion should be kept within a single article. Arllaw (talk) 13:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Arllaw: Sorry for my late response. If effects and public opinion are to be in a single article, what should that article's title be? "Effects and public opinion of immigration to the United States"? If you have any suggestions, please feel free to state them; this goes for anyone else as well. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps something simpler, like "Impact of Immigration to the United States". Arllaw (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Arllaw: It might be necessary to do without conciseness in favour of clarity. I'm not sure if "impact" communicates the intended message, and I'm also concerned that it could be a colloquialism in this context. I'd like to hear what others think about this, though – perhaps there's a better title someone else could come up with, or perhaps the title you suggested is fine and I'm just overthinking it. I posted about this split discussion on the United States wikiproject talk page once before, but that didn't seem to attract much attention. Do you have any suggestions for how we can get more input here? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"Impact of..." seems to be a common approach to titling articles, but you may find other common approaches. Even though less specific, a concise title can provide advantages to end-users over a "more precise" title that is excessively long. Arllaw (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Arllaw: We can go with that then. So what is the list of proposed sub-articles now? I'll update the template on the article page accordingly. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

How about just "Effects of immigration"? Public opinion to it would be a section. deisenbe (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Deisenbe: That was my first suggestion. Depending on the merit of the points for and against such titles, and any other options that exist, we can decide which to use. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that's gonna do anything, the public opinion part is barely much to change, the article would still be too long to navigate comfortably. I suggest an alternative message: This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page. Cleter (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

As anybody who's ever tried it knows, splitting an article is not as simple as it sounds. X-References may fail, so notes have to be copied and pasted. Plus there need to be new links associating the new articles. All the links to the present article—there are hundreds—need to be revised multiple times. To which new articles would the existing illustrations be moved? What new illustrations are available for the new articles? There is also the question of whether everything in the current article would properly fit into one of the new articles, and what to do if some of it doesn't. And there is also the not insignificant question of who would do what, and who would coordinate things. In my view, there has to be one person at least keeping track of all the parts of each revision.

Perhaps someone could explain to me what section(s) of the present article would properly be turned into an article on "United Ststes Immigration Policy", as suggested above. The history?

On looking at the existing article, it says absolutely nothing, and says that it is saying nothing, about the forced immigration of enslaved Africans until 1808, and clandestinely afterwards. They were not being counted as immigrants at the time, but in every sense I can think of, they were still immigrants. They came from foreign countries to the United States, where almost all of them remained. They were immigrants. And their numbers were substantial. They belong in the statistics. deisenbe (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has been dormant for several months, so I've begun the process of splitting the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: The opinion about the topic is a component of the topic itself and belongs within the primary article. Also, this proposal was made almost a year ago and should now be settled one way or the other. Keystone18 (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Article splitting template

The debate has gone nowhere these past years since July 2021. On resolving the issue, in accordance to rule number 8 on when to remove the template, it clearly states (ahem):

"You may remove a template when according to your best judgment the lack of edits and/or talk page discussion should be interpreted as the issue not worth fixing (as a form of "silent consensus"). Please note there is currently no consensus for general age-related removal of maintenance templates – that is, removing a template purely or chiefly because it is old is not considered a sufficient argument. Exception: removing POV-related templates whose discussions have gone dormant is encouraged, as addressed in the bullet point immediately above;"

Unless anyone has anything to say or anyone to introduce into the discussion, I will be bold and remove the template within 2 weeks. Thank you. Cleter (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Also number 4

"When an article talk page discussion has not been initiated (for templates requesting it);" Cleter (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I will be true to my word. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 01:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Flagcruft

Flags are excessively overused in this article. A lot of the immigrants left their original countries because they want to disassociate themselves with the regimes associated with those flags in the first place, and using those flags to represent them is not only inappropriate, but can be offensive. Furthermore, a lot of those flags are anachronistic, representing regimes or countries that didn't exist at the time the immigrants left. DHN (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed them. DHN (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IG270 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Shreya.C123, Riyarajani.

— Assignment last updated by Nathan.brenn (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2024

Under Legal issues, add

In Department of State v. Muñoz, U.S. Supreme court opined that U.S. citizens do not have a fundamental liberty to admit their foreign spouses

207.96.32.81 (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Geardona (talk to me?) 00:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session24

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2024 and 16 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 4nDr34.M30 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 research conducted at Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City

In regards to a recent edit, the author of the study is an economist named Elior Cohen. Is the author well known or is the report significant in terms of coverage as it relates to Immigration to the United States. Is there some explanation as to why this is DUE? Cheers DN (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)