Talk:Mexico–United States border crisis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 June 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jkarella.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV, poorly written

A poorly written Trump-bashing broadside does not a Wiki article make. In fact, this whole page could be deleted and dealt with under some other page - Immigration detention in the United States or the Mexico-United States Border.

WisDom-UK (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

If this pointless article is to be kept, at least make it neutral, and written in correct English. That means including at least some points and citations that support the Trump border policy. "The agents of the Border Patrol, a quasi-military organization" - of course it is, it's the organisation that protects the Mexican border, not some backwood village border crossing in Vermont. "Raised horror and shame over America’s current immigration policy" - how is this a suitable tone of voice for an encyclopedia? This is the sort of embarrassing trash that gave Wikipedia such a bad name 10-15 years ago.WisDom-UK (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

ongoing crisis under the Presidency of Joe Biden

--Präziser (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree re. proposer. Where is this section? Could include information re. Kamala Harris as she is the border tsar.JLo-Watson (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"...the coment Biden made stating that he would grant asylum to any illegal migrants who entered the country within his first 100 days in office if elected.." needs citation or should be removed. I reviewed the Politico article reference for footnote - 13 and there is no quote of candidate Biden saying this and there is no reference to this quote. I have googled to find a quote of candidate Biden saying this and I can not find it anywhere. Consequently, I have decided to remove it from the article at this time. If someone can find a legitimate quote, by all means, put it back. Bobespirit2112 15 February 2022

Title definition

The first line of the page reads "The US-Mexico border crisis refers to the policies that have led to Central American migrants seeking asylum in the United States at the Mexico-United States border," which seem an awkward definition. The crisis refers to the handling of the migrants coming to the borders, more than other things. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Restored page

The decision to make the page redirect to Mexico–United States border was undiscussed. Because of this, I decided to restore it. The user who made the edit can use this page to make the case for the redirect. --MutuallyInclusive (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to Mexico-United States border is inappropriate

The border crisis has attracted significant attention from multiple reliable news sources. It deserves its own page because it is a significant event that is frequently discussed on its and and because it has wide-ranging impact on United States politics. It is not some minor incident that simply happens on the Mexico-United States border. It is similar to "Trump wall", which has its own article despite being about something on the Mexico-US border. The situation is also similar to how "Covid-19" and "Covid-19 pandemic" have separate articles. One describes the "entity", and the other describes an influential "event" relating to the entity.

The "Mexico-United States border" article mainly focuses on its history, security, checkpoints, environments (i.e. a description of its current state). A well-written article on the mexico-united states border crisis would involve writing about its political background (i.e. analyzing actions of both the Trump and Biden administration) and would go beyond the scope of the border article.

Furthermore, there is much existing material in the old "Mexico–United States border crisis" article. Redirecting it to another page and throwing that information away is not justifiable without a compelling reason.

Will revert the page soon if no objections. A list of sources referring to the border crisis on its own: Pinkslimo (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: LIBR 1 Working with Sources M

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yy8511 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Yy8511 (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

this is not speculative, passes verification

edit reads: "in part because he wanted to use the border crisis as a campaign issue against Biden"

CNN reads: "in part because he wants to campaign on the issue this November and doesn’t want President Joe Biden to score a victory in an area where he is politically vulnerable"

the content should be restored

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border_crisis&curid=62103577&diff=1204183253&oldid=1204039311

soibangla (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe I have shown the content is not speculative. Unless the IP or others continue to dispute it, I will restore it. soibangla (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Public Policy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MarlaGuerra (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Amanzo2, Leonid Libenzon.

— Assignment last updated by Shakaigaku Obasan (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Article's scope is too vague, should be scaled back to 2020 onward only

The article doesn't really say when the present crisis started (even in the title), it has information going back to the Obama presidency. It includes information about the 2014 "crisis". The scope should be scaled back to 2020 onward, when the number of migrants crossing increased. MarkiPoli (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Didn't it start in 2019 though? in 2019 there was a 100% rise in border encounters, just over a million, versus around half a million each year from 2013-2018 73.186.66.50 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Cato

Superb Owl why is Cato an unreliable source? seems to me they got valid data soibangla (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not comfortable giving space in articles to think tank reports that are not being cited by journalists (for notability) and haven't gone through peer-review (reliability) Superb Owl (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I am aware that CBP is not fully forthcoming with their data, requiring some to file FOIA requests to get more data, seeming to cherrypick for certain news outlets (namely Fox News) perhaps to depict a particular negative narrative of an ongoing border crisis. It seems to me that Cato has pulled data together to show gotaways have sharply decreased since Title 42 ended. I do not see why Cato should be reflexively considered unreliable. From what I read, there has been little news coverage this year of a continuing border crisis, evidently because the Cato data of gotaways appears correct and hence the issue has dropped off the national radar screen. soibangla (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I put it back in, though more succinctly - feel free to copyedit.
Any of the charts worth adding? They seem to be under CC-4.0 license Superb Owl (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Commentary by politicans

@JSwift49 wants to start a discussion on whether we should include commentary from politicians on what they do and do not like about particular actions into this article.
I removed some comments from political leaders (except some instances when critiquing their own party) as excessive detail and NPOV. Simply put, criticism from politicians of the opposing party for an action taken by another party are so overwhelming that it could bog down the article in opinions when this article, in my opinion, works better with less content and more verifiable facts. Happy to be overruled on this but wanted to explain the changes that were made along those lines. Superb Owl (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Specifying the opinion of Duarte (one of 2 House Republicans who opposed a bill) while not mentioning any of the Dems, or vast majority of Republicans who voted for it, or the 5 Dems who voted for the second bill, seems quite WP:UNDUE to me.

Re. commentary, I'd thought it would be notable to briefly mention how Republicans reacted to Biden's executive order as it was a notable order (even has its own Wikipedia article) [1] JSwift49 19:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree to disagree on both counts - curious to hear what others think Superb Owl (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

the article timeline

goes back to Obama years, but the lead is limited to Biden years soibangla (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It only has a couple reliable sources - the body probably needs to be improved before mentioning in the lead Superb Owl (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Pent-up demand

@JSwift49, why when summarizing the BBC article do you keep omitting and then deleting the first of the 3 points they make (pent-up demand)? Superb Owl (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

To me that fell under migration patterns + COVID was already mentioned earlier in the paragraph. 'Pent-up demand' without 'due to the COVID-19 pandemic' is fine with me. JSwift49 18:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)