Template talk:Immigration to the United States

		Subject Archive
Style				Links

Created an archive

As you can see I've created a subject archive - and since all discussions were closed I archived everything.daniel folsom 17:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err...I don't think your archive is working. —Shanesan (contribs) (Talk) 20:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It works, it's just unusual. Try clicking on "Style" or "Links" in the box at top. -Will Beback · † · 22:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States immigration legislation

I'd forgotten that we have List of United States immigration legislation. This template had some entries that weren't on it so I've updated it now. Since it lists all of the present and proposed legislation, shall we just link to it and omit the two lists in the template? Or perhaps also keep a link to pending legislation. I've noticed that the template is getting longer and longer. (It might be useful to create a list of immigration-related organizations too.) ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eek that's a tough one - I almost think that having one link isn't enough - but I agree that the current number might be too many. Too bad there's not a way to just have the really notable ones on here (haha: if you're article has 10 or more solutions - it can go on the template!). If you have something in mind then I'll just leave it up to you, because I'm really blanking on ideas--daniel folsom 05:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's think about it. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footer version

Template:IIUSfooter‎ is a horizontal version of this template. It looks good, and is much less obtrusive on smaller articles. It looks so good that I propose we simply use it in all circumstances and drop this vertical version entirely. That will avoid the problem of two versions to maintain. Some editors have put hard work in assmbling this info, but formatting is a secondary attribute to which we needn't be attached. Thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I think that we should delete Template:IIUSfooter and copy it into here due to extensive talk - in fact I'm going to do that..--daniel folsom 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Population Growth

That organizations seems to have more to do with reducing births than immigration. - Schrandit (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree - they might be somewhat involved in immigration - but they are definitely not an Illegal Immigration group.--daniel folsom 19:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AAB (Acronyms are bad)

The current list - CHIRLA · CCIR · NIF · FIRM · WAAA · CASA · NA · MM · MB · FAIR · MMP · MCDC · CCIR · SOS · CIS · NUSA · NPG · MPI · YDSM - is dreadful and meaningless. This section should include the full name of these groups and divide them into meaningful subsets if possible. A show/hide button could be used just for this section. -- Banjeboi 02:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the same thing. I'm familiar withthe field, but even so only a few of those are meaningful. Will Beback talk 03:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's becoming a useless template list it might make a good article list as in List of notable non-government organizations involved with illegal immigration issues in the United States and the template then only has to link to the list. -- Banjeboi 03:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the list is useless, it's just the acronyms that aren't informative. Will Beback talk 04:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you meant that only some of those groups should be listed. What would make the most sense then? -- Banjeboi 04:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I meant that the acronyms were not meaningful. I don't see a problem with writing out the names, and then collapsing the section if it gets too long, as you suggested. Will Beback talk 04:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support leaving them off. -- Banjeboi 17:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be for keeping them in somewhere, maybe diving them into different organizations by view within this template or perhaps starting a new template devoted to the organizations themselves. - Schrandit (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around and saw that there are quite a few organizations in Category:Immigrant rights organizations and Category:Immigration political advocacy groups in the United States that should also be included in the list Adding them would make the list even more unwieldly. I'm not sure what the template does that the categories don't already do. Maybe we should link to the categories? Will Beback talk 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would also work, eventually we'll have a list of the groups and we can update the link to that. -- Banjeboi 01:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a standalone list. Will Beback talk 03:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle to: Immigration to the United States

In looking for information about immigration to the United States, I noticed that the navigation box is titled Illegal Immigration to the United States and related topics, whose neutrality in the main article is under dispute. I would suggest that the navigation box be retitled to Immigration in the United States (or something similar) and that the navigation box be reordered to reflect the change. This suggestion has been also placed in the discussion of WikiProject United States. --Enos733 (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would most likely explode the scope/content of the navbox; this one should be kept the way it is, e.g. narrow in scope. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how that this rename would change the scope/content of the navbox since this navbox contains most of the pertinent information relating to immigration already. In addition, this navbox is the only navbox on many of the immigration pages. I am not a fan of lots of navboxes, so I think we should work to find a solution.--Enos733 (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point; but then the whole thing needs to be re-arranged. For example, I cannot see how "Operations" would be applicable to immigration in general. The militaristic tone clearly points to deportations etc. Also, having the whole line of "Issues" right at the top needs to be moved; it contains "Human trafficking" and "US-Mexico Border" — topics that are definitely not on the hit-list when it comes to immigration in general (I'd say that most regular immigrants would be slightly offended when the first line they are associated with contains crimes). The "relevant laws" and "visas and policies" therefore belong at the top. On the other hand, stuff like the DREAM act do not concern regular immigrants at all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would organize the box in this way: 1) US laws 2) Visas and policies 3) US Governmental organizations 4) Related Immigration issues 5) Proposed legislation 6) Immigration Stations (Ellis Island, Angel Island, Customs, etc.) 6) Historical policies 7) US Immigration by nationality (if there are wikipedia pages) 8) Immigration in Film and Literature --Enos733 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's play with Template:Illegal immigration to the United States navbox/temp. It's a start. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Seb and Enos. The new version looks very good ! Mightymights (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there consensus to change the template? Draft here: Template:Illegal immigration to the United States navbox/temp.--Enos733 (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Ok with me; anyone who could possibly be interested in this has had more than two weeks to comment. Let's just wait one more day and then copy it over. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans for Immigration Reform

Hi there. I have just created the article Republicans for Immigration Reform. Is it correct to add it to this navigation template? Thank you! Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]