Talk:Central American Minors Program

Untitled

Perhaps a section on the impact on perceptions of immigration policy? --BBRR18 (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2017 (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: Solo.mariajose.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:48, 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): Lecynn. Peer reviewers: Jnaoum14, Lecynn, Mrw016.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central American Minors Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170519022527/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/obama-refugees-central-america.html?_r=0 to https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/obama-refugees-central-america.html?_r=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the content is neutral, though I think you could do more research on what the Trump Administration wants to do after the ban is over. It's only a line of information, so you could definitely add more to it. Also, I think you might want to add more links to the "implementation" part of the page. For example, you could link the USCIS to their own page, and so forth. There's only one link for that entire section. Jnaoum14 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Jnaoum14 Edit: While the content is neutral, I think you should be able to add/fix 3 things: First, there is only one link connection to another page in the entire "implementation" section. If you can reference more to that section (for example, linking Northern Triangle or USCIS) it'd probably be a lot better just because the reader can receive more background information on it. And not that it doesn't seem credible already, but adding links to other pages in it would probably solidify the credibility. Second, I think it'd be really powerful if you could include any 'criticisms' and 'benefits' section to the page, just like one person on this thread said. If you can include that popular opinion viewpoint, it'd be a good gauge to see just exactly how the American people viewed it, or at least how some people in Congress felt about it. Third, you never sourced what the USCIS is. The reader will most likely not know what that is or how it had any impact on CAM, so to explain that and source it would be a good idea. Overall, good job on the page! :) 108.193.234.14 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Jnaoum14108.193.234.14 (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Overall -- the article is short and way too concise. First, there should be more details about this policy. What should be included, perhaps, is the application process, qualifications, and an added category for refugees, since there is a parole category added. Secondly, the voice is neutral, however, it lacks direction. For example, it starts with the definition of CAM but trails into eligibility with only one mention of the child's eligibility and not of the secondary parent's status/eligibility. This viewpoint is underrepresented. In addition, I don't see the need for an 'expansion' category. The first sentence doesn't make sense and the last sentence is random and confers a biased point. Links are outdated (ex: link 1 is an archived content) and some citations have no active links (ex: citation 8). Lastly, the second comment under the 'eligibility' category misspelled "met" and wrote "meant" instead. Lecynn (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The article needs to be updated with more recent information about the program. There has been more updates about the effects of the travel ban for the Central American Minors and how they are also effected because of the new executive order on the DACA program. Since the program is a halt, it should also discuss the "benefits" of the program and how people have benefited from it before the trump administration. It also needs to elaborate on the Travel ban, Who, what, and how it negatively effects Central American Minors who were on the program, or trying to benefit from the program.Mrw016 (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Mrw016 (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)