From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Changes to the ethnics section[edit]

I removed the uncited claim that the labour market in developed nations need unskilled immigration. In many countries, like the US and New Zealand this isn't true. They need more skilled immigration. Also in countries like Germany they usually end up unemployed, because they are not needed in the labor market. I also think the picture is bigger than the labor market. We need to think about the economy and the country, which should have been addressed after that claim. Because even though they may be needed in the labor market, they may not benefit to the economy or the country. Camlon1 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


The European colonization of the Americas...was the biggest immigration in known history.

Swiiman (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Editorial comments on the article[edit]

At the end of this (quoted from the article) paragraph are editorial comments that - regardless of the quality of the article - do not belong in the article so I am removing them. They can be read here and properly inserted by the author on the talk page: The politics of immigration have become increasingly associated with other issues, such as national security, terrorism, and in western Europe especially, with the presence of Islam as a new major religion. Those with security concerns cite the 2005 civil unrest in France that point to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy as an example of the value conflicts arising from immigration of Muslims in Western Europe while failing to recognize the fact that most participants of the 2005 civil unrest were citizens of France, not immigrants themselves, and the essence of their protest was denial of equal rights, and blatant racism, on the part of the state. Because of all these associations, immigration has become an emotional political issue in many European nations. EDITORIAL COMMENTS START HERE ==> This paragraph is rife of self-contradictions. Is French state racist against non- French citizens? What rights should this stratus of society fight for? I am an eye witness of the events, non European. 100% of the participants were under-age Arab people. Underage means less than 18 but close to 18. The purpose is political: whatever they do, they can't be prosecuted.

Netrapt (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Immigrants vs Colonists[edit]

The opening definition of 'immigrants' is too vague and not historically or legally accurate. For example, as Chilton Williamson pointed out in The Immigration Mystique, the 80,000 mostly English and Scots-Irish settlers of colonial America, the ancestors of America’s historic Anglo-Saxon majority, had not transplanted themselves from one nation to another (which is what defines immigration with respect to people), but from Britain and its territories to British colonies. They were not immigrants, but colonists. The immigrants of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries came to an American nation that had already been formed by those colonists and their descendants. Ignorance of this distinction has lead to the often repeated assertion that the USA is a 'nation of immigrants', when in fact roughly half the population is descended from founding colonists, not immigrants. Wikipediaphile (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What About Really Old Immigration?[edit]

This article doesn't have any information about immigration except in the past few hundred years. To be comprehensive shouldn't it have some information about immigration going back as far as it did. I'd like to know about immigration in ancient times or the middle ages. Article should be labeled a stub. (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's a stub, but I think this does point to a wider problem. The article doesn't have a clear definition of immigration anywhere; what makes one person an 'immigrant' and another a 'native'? Is someone whose distant ancestors migrated to an area an immigrant? For example, many in the North East of England are descended at least partly from Scandinavians who immigrated/invaded in the middle ages. Are they immigrants? If not, what about people whose grand- or great-grandparents migrated from the Commonwealth countries in the mid-twentieth century? Where is the line drawn? The article implicitly draws the line 'after' very old immigration but before modern immigration, but this is in danger of being arbitrary. Now of course all this may be because there is no clear definition or distinction to be made. But this could at least be mentioned; I'm sure there is plenty of literature to refer to on this point. And it would reduce the arbitrariness of the focus on modern immigration. BuffaloBill90 (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The japan stamp is wrong[edit]

This reads kikoku and it means "Return country". It is stamped in the passport of Japanese National and means they are back in Japan. Foreigner never get that stamp even if they take a vacation out of Japan (They are always admitted). I think it's a little bit out of place to have this stamp in the immigration page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I removed it. -- (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does it read as...[edit]

Why does the Immigration page has a little box that reads as " This article's introduction section may not adequately summarize its contents. To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points. (October 2010)"? How can we fix this? I just want to make sure everything is correct; doing so for some homework.... (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

emigrants vs expatriates[edit]

Please see Talk:Expatriate#Expatriates_versus_Emigrants and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#emigrants_vs_expatriates. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:25, 28 February 2011 i love to talk

Merge with Emigration?[edit]

Are the two different enough that they warrant having their own pages? By definition, the only difference is the perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zujua (talkcontribs) 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The net migration rates graphic[edit]

There's this 'net migration rates' graphic at the beginning of the article ( which does not cite any sources or references. I am, therefore, gonna delete it. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Italians born outside Italy[edit]

Message for IP with no talk page: You changed "the Americas" to ""North America" in the sentence "As of 2009, the foreign born population origin of Italy was subdivided as follows: Europe (53.5%), Africa (22.3%), Asia (15.8%), the Americas (8.1%) and Oceania (0.06%). ". The AmericaS is right - Brazil and Argentina are home to the BIGGEST populations of descendents of Italians, more than the US. As for "North America", Canada comes an almost insignificant 5th place and Mexico is nowhere. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This pages needs help[edit]

  • First, the introduction for this page is in no way reflective of the overall content.
  • Second, there are lots of places throughout the text that are without citation.
  • Third, there is no history section. People have been immigrating for as long as we have recorded history and this article says nothing about this. An expert on this topic is needed.
      ** What makes you think there was no immigration before recorded history ???   ;-)  RobinClay (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In short, this article needs a lot of work. Please help out if you can and please let me know if you can collaborate to improve this page and we can plan and divide up the tasks.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

International vs. internal[edit]

The article seems to be restricted to international (im)migration. This should be reflected in the titel, or the article should be broadened. Alenepaagata (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Compare Immigration_to_the_United_States -- Is this article better now? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC) - Wayback machine[edit]

This is listed as a "dead link". You can use this one instead. (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Immigration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Immigration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I replaced the URL a with working link and working archive link. Mojoworker (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Female immigration?[edit]

Hi Wikipedians! I'm Michelle and I was thinking of possibly writing a new article (or at least add a new section) about trends in female immigration. I know female immigrants tend to be more susceptible to domestic violence, not to mention the whole mail-order brides phenomenon. What are your guys's thoughts, and does everyone think this should a separate article or a section in the current one? Mjiang94 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Michelle! I would suggest creating the new article in your sandbox to determine whether or not it has enough content to be considered its own article. You can also start by writing the content as a new section in this page, then moving it to a new article if it becomes too large to fit here. Either way, don't let that stop you from contributing. If you make a new page and there's an agreement that it should be merged here, that can always be done later. --Iamozy (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Immigrant rights[edit]

I was surprised there was not an article for Immigrant rights, so I went ahead and Redirect redirected the page to this article for now. Are any editors interested in expanding this redirect? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

For the health section -- new book[edit]

This new book may be relevant for expanding the health section to cover immigrants' health, too: The Health of Newcomers: Immigration, Health Policy, and the Case for Global Solidarity, by Patricia Illingsworth and Wendy E. Parmet, 2017, New York University Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Immigration. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2018[edit] (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018[edit]

Change 'take-up', in the first paragraph, to 'take up'. Bennett Jester (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Where they do not posses citizenship in 1st sentence[edit]

If a person buys citizenship in one of the countries that offers, if they renounce in one they are expatriating there, and emigrating from it, but if they are not immigrating to the other what then? (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Noting also that a number of countries don't require you to be there to do the tx. (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

CIS and lead section changes[edit]

SDSU-Prepper, please don't reinsert the CIS material or water down the language in the lead section as you've done here and on several other occasions. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (CIS is not a reliable source). It's especially poor practice to juxtapose claims from advocacy groups with actual findings from peer-reviewed research. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight ("Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements....Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view."). --Neutralitytalk 02:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential benefits of mass migration[edit]

Hi @Snooganssnoogans:, could you clarify what you meant here. What other directions would those be? My edit was based on de Borjas's article where he assesses other evaluations of potential benefits and builds a model to estimate how many people would have to move. Ultimately it's not that sophisticated, most of these huge numbers are calculated under the assumption that people would move from low to high GPD per capita countries and thus would increase the total GPD. Alaexis¿question? 18:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Specifying the movement of migration from developing to developed seems unnecessary. There are GDP gains from all forms of migration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
That might be true, but it's not what is written in the article. The article presents specific numbers of foregone benefits and it's important (according to the article I added, it's not just my opinion) that you get these numbers assuming scenarios of massive immigration flows in a certain direction. Unless one of the estimates mentioned in the article (gains of 67 and 147 percent of the world GDP) refers to a scenario not involving massive immigration from developing to developed countries, I think we need to keep it in the article. Alaexis¿question? 12:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Fourteenth citation irrelevant to cited phrase[edit]

The fourteenth citation only demonstrates that 50% of variability explaining a random citizen of the Earth's personal income is explained by nationality. It is only evidence that some countries have more wealth than others.

It does not as is inferred make any reference as to whether immigration between countries of varying development levels reduces overall/total poverty rates.

I can't remove the citation since my account is too new so if someone could take the time to remove that would be great thank you.

Or if I'm making a logical error let me know.

Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The study clear suggests that is the case. Here's from the study's conclusion: "Thus, own efforts, hope that one’s country does well, and migration are three ways in which people can improve their global income position." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I know, it it obvious that immigration can have vast improvement to an individuals personal income. (Ie. They are able to make much more money in a wealthier country) However, it does not address the heart of the issue of what the impact on total poverty is. The phrase cited is worded so as to seem to claim that this study examined the effect of migration on poverty levels as a whole, whereas in reality it was only examining the effect on the individuals having migrated. If the citation is to remain it should clarify that it is only referring to the immigrants income and not an analysis of poverty rates in the country as a whole. Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The lede doesn't specify that it's "poverty reduction" in a country though. It seems perfectly fine with me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree, I feel that the citation is being misleading in the phrase it is being attributed to. Does anyone else have an opinion seems like me and @Snooganssnoogans are at a bit of an impasse. Mkmatthewkoehler (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Immigration and crime section[edit]

(Re-written for clarity after a misunderstanding and diversion related to the topic of size.)

This issue doesn't relate to this article only, but for the purposes of this discussion am confining it to immigration-related crime.

When I looked at the Crime section in this article and then also at the "child" article to which it is directed, Immigration and crime, there was about 95% overlap with the first couple of paragraphs from the Immigration and crime#Worldwide section in that ("child") article and the Immigration#Crime section in this ("parent") article. I first did what seemed logical to me, to update the "child" article with a couple of facts which were not included there (with attribution duly noted) and then delete the text under Immigration#Crime here altogether, changing the redirection from a Further type to a Main one. This would serve to reduce the size of this article (although not critical in this case) as well as avoid future errors and duplication when edits are made in the child article but not the parent. My delete was reverted as unnecessary - with some justification, as I found when reading up further on the topic in WP:SPLIT, which does say that a summary should be left in the parent.

However in this case, it seems more appropriate to copy the lead from Immigration and crime to Immigration#Crime, rather than use the first couple of paragraphs in Immigration and crime#Worldwide section - which doesn't define nor summarise it, surely? Any objections if I change this?

My main interest in this as a general topic is to try to streamline the information for readability, consistency and veracity, so I am looking for ideas on how best to maintain integrity in cases where new articles are hived off from a parent article. Questions: How long should the summary in the parent article be, and how many citations does it need? Should it repeat a great deal of what is in the new article, as this one does/did? Do we rely on future editors to ensure similar modification in both section and new article if necessary, or is there a direction that can be given to add new material to the child article only? Should the general rule be to use the lead in the child article as the summary in the parent article section?

Somewhat related to this particular topic... There are a lot of articles relating to immigration in different countries, some with Crime sections and at least one (Germany) having a whole article relating to immigrant-related crime in that country. It would be nice to see some more consistency in the treatment of the topic in each country. @AadaamS: - it would be great if you can contribute to the discussion here as you have been editing a number of these articles recently and I would appreciate your input. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

We should summarize the immigration and crime article. There's nothing wrong AFAIK about duplicating an existing summary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
As the section stood/stands it was/is WP:SOAPBOXing in favour of legalizing immigrants. I deleted an analysis based on a city in Texas, as the section's scope is "worldwide". It is not the job of enWP to suggest policy changes. AadaamS (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Snooganssnoogans and AadaamS. Having read WP:SS closely and then learnt how to do transclusions, I decided that the best course of action was to use the current lead section in the child article by transcluding it. (My recent issue was about using the wrong section from the child article as the summary, not whether its okay to copy it, having established that earlier). It ended up requiring quite a lot of work because of the many citations only referred to by ref name in the lead, but I first moved nearly all of those up to the lead in the child article, so that the transclusion would work (dropped a couple as the number seemed excessive for a lead, and the info and citations occurred elsewhere in the article anyway). I am not suggesting that the lead in Immigration and crime is perfect, btw - at this point I was only interested in the mechanics of the edit process. But at least any future editing will be reflected in both places now.
AadaamS Fair enough about that Texas citation. And there's probably a lot else which needs review (as mentioned, I haven't really focussed on content as yet), but I think I'm done with these for now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019[edit]

best immigration consultancy in bangalore Kabitha (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:LINKSPAM NiciVampireHeart 06:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A feel like a consolidated "Criticism" section could improve this article and reduce subjective bias[edit] (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not endorse nationalism. Globalism is the only acceptable religion around here. You'll learn that quickly as you try to make edits. (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
No. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
No indeed. Yhdwww (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)



I just have a few questions on the layout of the article. Please fill free to comment if you agree or disagree with me. Why should "Social Capital" "Health" "Housing" have their own section. I feel they all can be easy sub sections under a bigger section. I just do not know which section it can go under. But I just feel they are taking too much space being their own section. I would like to applause the editors that created the "Crime" section. It sounds like there is no bias language and it is clean. I mean this by they are sticking to the facts and not "original research". Jmmonty16 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Difference between Invasion & Immigration[edit]

A section to differentiate this article from the article on invasion would be useful. (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Weird Health section[edit]

I removed UNDUE anecdotal (=not representative) 21c London only statistics. I introduced at least a part of the missing elephant into the room: immigrants directly cause epidemics and nowadays, also pandemics.

See this sample ref I used in my edit for starters:

Who tried to shot this "elephant"?

-> Let us elaborate on the obvious.

Zezen (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)