Talk:Migrant detentions under the first Trump administration

Thought of writing this in case someone nominates for deletion or a merger with Trump administration family separation policy. There is indeed a lot of overlap with that article, but here's the key difference. Not all migrants arrive in the United States as families. This is clearly stated in page 3 of the [https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2019-07/OIG-19-51-Jul19_.pdf July 2019] DHS OIG report. In the table, you can see 3 categories of migrants: (1) Unaccompanied Alien Children, (2) Family Units, and (3) Single Adults. The family separation policy obviously only applies to (2), and does not apply to (1) and (3). This article covers detentions for (1), (2), and (3). starship.paint (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

{{Did you know nominations/Trump administration migrant detentions}}

{{ping|Sir Joseph}} - you added the POV tag and assert the article is not neutral. How so? Which sections? starship.paint (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

:The tone of the article for one. In addition, you use for the most part primarily left wing sources. It reads as if to be biased against Trump, not to educate the user about the issue. It's as if you wrote it for advocacy, not journalism. For example, Newsweek is generally not considered to be reliable by most news media anymore, they are now a more tabloid source, and that is but one of the sources used. You basically started this page with an agenda, not with a topic. You then used leftist sources to use what they claim the other side says and then they refute the claim. That is POV.

For starters, try expanding the existing article, and then see if it needs to be split off. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• (1) Tone. Where? Be specific so that I can solve this problem you see. Examples. Sentences. Paragraphs.
• (2) Newsweek. WP:RSP: generally reliable. Now, I've removed them anyway. Next? What else?
• (3) {{tq|basically started this page with an agenda}} - continue thinking that instead of WP:AGF.
• (4) {{tq|You then used leftist sources to use what they claim the other side says and then they refute the claim.}} - I can see only one instance where you could have perceived this. Pence’s visit when a journalist said there was a stench. I don’t think that’s a problem because the journalist was on the exact same visit as Pence.
• (5) Expand the current parent article? No thanks. I have no obligation (and no time) to do that. You are welcome to do that. I have already proven that there is enough content for a split off. starship.paint (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|Sir Joseph}} - when you're back, let me know if you're continuing this line of arguments here and in the below section. I removed the tags in the meantime. starship.paint (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

:You have failed to correct the issue. For example, the Santa Clara law review. That one is not allowed, as far as I can tell. That is not a RS. Even if it is a RS, the Law Review is saying exactly what I said in my complaint. Again, you then use unacreddited or non-peer review or open source journals, or advocacy journals. That is not allowed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

::Some quotes from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#Israel, Palestine and the United Nations / Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 165#BC Law Review - self-published, unreliable?. starship.paint (talk)

::*Bearian: {{tq|virtually all law reviews and law journals are reliable sources}}

::*DGG: {{tq|The actual articles written by legal scholars in established law reviews are citable as the highest level academic sources in the field}}

::*Eppefleche: {{tq|For anyone who has knowledge of how law reviews work, and the regard in which they are held by judges and others in the legal community, the notion that they may not be RSs is somewhat startling. In law (at least in the U.S.), law reviews are the pre-eminent publications, held in far higher regard for reliability and quality than any other legal academic publication}}

::*Racepacket: {{tq|I concur that student-edited law reviews are subject to extensive fact checking and should be generally assumed to be a reliable source.}}

::*David Epstein: {{tq|Boston College Law Review appears to be a peer-reviewed academic journal (they publish both scholarly works by law professors and local student essays, so one needs to be careful, but the one you want to cite is indeed by professors not affiliated with Boston College}}

Kevin Johnson and Rose Cuison-Villazor are professors of law (legal scholars) from University of California, Davis and Rutgers Law School respectively. They were reviewed by editors at the Santa Clara University School of Law and the Santa Clara University School of Law. Also, if you agree with Professor Johnson's views, I'm not sure why you're using that as a complaint. The section is about comparisons and Professor Johnson makes a comparison. starship.paint (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

:I am also not sure history.com is a RS. Further, Newsweek should not be used as a RS, they are no longer what they used to be, and should not be used as a RS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

::{{ping|Sir Joseph}} - I'll take off history.com. If you have a problem with Newsweek, take it to WP:RSN and strike it off WP:RSP. Ranting here does not improve the article. What are the other problematic sources? Is it so hard to list out every single one of them? You've obviously evaluated them already. starship.paint (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|StonyBrook}} I removed the tags in light of this comment by {{u|Sir Joseph}}. I asked him to provide reliable sources of his own, he said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Trump_administration_migrant_detentions&diff=908856530&oldid=908809240] : {{tq|I have no interest. This article shouldn't exist. There are many articles that this article could be a part of, but you chose to make an advocacy article}}. Coupled with the non-responses here, I don’t see how this can improve the article. This approach appears to be far from collaborative. starship.paint (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|starship.paint}} If I may, I was perusing this article to better educate myself on the situation and I can't help but agree that the tone is not very neutral in some places, though Sir Joseph did not do a great job explaining. I can point out a few examples of places where I feel the article can be improved.

• (1) "The Trump administration have transformed the view of immigrants from being a benefit to American society, whether legal or illegal, to portraying illegal migrants to be a threat to the United States' economy, security, and to the national identity." Transformed what view? By whom? "The view of immigrants [as] being a benefit to socirty" is a vague statement that implies that in 2015 it was agreed that illegal immigrants were objectively a benefit. Border control was an issue back in the Bush days (as far as I remember) so it's not exactly like the Trump administration invented anti-immigrant sentiment.

• (2) "The United States has been described by many as a "nation of immigrants" but has not always treated immigrants well historically". This transfer is somewhat abrupt, you go from detailing the responsibility of CBP/ICE and then sudennly start talking about historical immigration. Perhaps it would be better to link to History of immigration to the United States? This section of historical background does not directly pertain to the Trump administration, yet many of your sources are articles regarding the current administration and its controversies.

• (3)"In April 2018, Peter Sean Brown, an American adult citizen..." How does this story, besides a potential deportation, have anything to do with the migrant detention centers?

I do not find as much wrong with the article as Sir Joseph did, though. For the most part I find it was well sourced and did well to inform me about the situation. (I'm pretty new to Wikipedia contributing, so I apologize if I did any of this wrong. You seem very experienced) Dabluecaboose (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

{{od}} {{ping|Dabluecaboose}} - first off, I hope you don't mind, I added a section header above to separate this from the 2019 discussion. starship.paint (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• (1) I will quote you what [https://ojs.uwindsor.ca/index.php/csw/article/view/5960/5005 the source] wrote on page 53 to 54, and you can verify whether I have followed the source. You have questions, but if the source does not answer them, neither can I.

{{tq2|Fifth and finally, as was mentioned earlier there have been a dizzying array of changes both proposed and implemented in U.S. immigration policy since the inauguration of President Trump in January of 2017. President Trump and his policy personnel have dramatically changed the view of immigration as a positive for society (an integral part of our history) and the economy, to viewing migrants, documented and undocumented, as a threat to economic and national security and, even more insidiously, the national identity (Pierce, Bolter, & Steele, 2018). With this changing view has come an amazing reversal of policy and procedure—stepped up enforcement against noncitizens in the interior of the United States. From January 20, 2017 to September 30, 2017, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) removed 61,000 migrants from the interior of the country, a 37% increase from those months in 2016.}}

• (2) I've added section headers and the link that you proposed. What do you think?

• (3) Hmm, Brown's case was him being mistaken as an illegal immigrant. So he was in a detention center for illegal immigrants. I see your point though, this article is on migrant detentions. I removed it as not relevant enough - though it's related, of course.

Thank you very much for bringing these up. I would very much like to her your responses. starship.paint (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

{{od}} Thanks for the thoughtful response! I really like the new headings and I think it clarified things significantly. Looking at the source for (1), it seems like it would be better to say "The Trump administration has changed CBP's view of immigrants from being a benefit to American society, whether legal or illegal, to portraying illegal migrants to be a threat to the United States' economy, security, and to the national identity." The original phrasing makes it sound like the Trump administration somehow changed the prevailing sentiment of most people, rather than internal direction/policy of a government agency. Dabluecaboose (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

:{{ping|Dabluecaboose}} - the source did not say explicitly say it was CBP's view, it instead credits {{tq|President Trump and his policy personnel}}. The source references [https://observatoriocolef.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/TCMTrumpSpring2018-FINAL.pdf Pierce, Bolter, & Steele, 2018], which at the end of its executive summary and the start of the introduction, refer to the {{tq|president and his allies}} and {{tq|the White House}}, and previously the {{tq|longstanding and bipartisan consensus among the leaders of both major political parties}}. Together, they are credited as {{tq|politicans}} and {{tq|policymakers}}. Therefore, I have changed the text to: {{purple|The Trump administration have transformed the executive branch policymakers' view of immigrants...}} I would like your input - is "executive branch" redundant? I know Congressmen are lawmakers, but if they are not policymakers, then "executive branch" would be redundant. I'm not familiar as I'm not American. Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

::{{ping|Starship.paint}} Apologies for the late response! The executive branch (headed by the President) is completely separate from Congress. Trump would have no power to change "policy" in what congress thinks/does. My main concern was the vague language ("The Trump administration have transformed the view of immigrants") made it seem like Trump had somehow changed prevailing American sentiment, as opposed to internal policy direction. I think the "Executive Branch" blurb is useful and accurate. Thanks! Dabluecaboose (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

{{U|Sir Joseph}}, explain, please. How is this academic source [https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/saclr57&div=21&id=&page= Immigration and Civil Rights in the Trump Administration: Law and Policy Making by Executive Order] from the Santa Clara Law Review dubious? Author is Kevin R. Johnson. University of California, Davis School of Law. Dean and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies. H-Index 40.00. starship.paint (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

:It says that non-white immigration until the 1950 was restricted. That is dubious. Need I remind you of the millions of Jews, among others who came to the US from the late 1800's onwards? Immigration to the US skyrocketed in the late 1800's. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

::If you consider the Irish, Italians and Jews non-white, as many did consider them then. But the context of the source's assertion is today's times when that is no longer the case, even amongst the likes of Jared Taylor who says [https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jared-taylor "Jews look white to me."] StonyBrook (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

:::So the US in the 1800's knew the future? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

::::I am referring to your own strawman 1800s argument. The U.S. in the past let in some kinds of non-whites but not others. But here we are talking about a contemporary source speaking in contemporary terms, where the 1800s groups are retroactively all considered white. The issue at hand are the real non-whites, and there's nothing dubious about their history in the U.S. StonyBrook (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

{{U|Sir Joseph}} - please forgive me for my gaps in American knowledge. I'm neither a citizen or resident of America. As for the question if Jews were considered whites historically in America, I did a search and found this source from The Atlantic. [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/are-jews-white/509453/]. starship.paint (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

{{tq2|From the earliest days of the American republic, Jews were technically considered white, at least in a legal sense. Under the Naturalization Act of 1790, they were considered among the “free white persons” who could become citizens. Later laws limited the number of immigrants from certain countries, restrictions which were in part targeted at Jews. But unlike Asian and African immigrants in the late 19th century, Jews retained a claim to being “Caucasian,” meaning they could win full citizenship status based on their putative race. - Emma Green, The Atlantic, 2016}}

There's also a Pew Research poll in 2013 that found that 94% of Jews polled described themselves as white. [http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/10/jewish-american-full-report-for-web.pdf Page 46] starship.paint (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|Sir Joseph}} - what are the specific factual inaccuracies in this article? You apparently know about the topic, yet you don't actually edit and improve the article ... or even point out what exactly the problems are. starship.paint (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

:Apparently knows about this topic. Specific problems with the statements and/or sources in this article must be addressed by the tagging editor or tags should be removed as being disruptive. StonyBrook (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

::I removed the tags in light of this comment by {{u|Sir Joseph}}. I asked him to provide reliable sources of his own, he said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Trump_administration_migrant_detentions&diff=908856530&oldid=908809240] : {{tq|I have no interest. This article shouldn't exist. There are many articles that this article could be a part of, but you chose to make an advocacy article}}. Coupled with the non-responses here, I don’t see how this can improve the article. This approach appears to be far from collaborative. starship.paint (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The article is written in the present tense, as though the Trump administration is still ongoing. There is no information newer than December 2020 and nothing at all about what has changed in the Biden administration, if anything. Has the policy been ended? What has been done in the area of immigration policy in the last half year? Since this is about Trump administration policy this needn't be very detailed, but something is needed. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

as per this Reuters article ( https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-will-instruct-homeland-security-pentagon-prepare-migrant-facility-2025-01-29/ )it looks like the second Donald Trump Administration is going to resume engaging in controversial policies. Thus, it might make sense to expand the article to cover the policies of the second Trump administration too. 1234567891011a (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)