Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Request revert of confirmed content

I need this diff to be reverted please. User alleges that the clause "Several months later and in response to the courts determinations" is "unconfirmed" but the memo published by DHS rescinding the DACA expansions proves otherwise:

I have considered a number of factors, including the preliminary injunction in this matter, the ongoing litigation, the fact that DACA never took effect, and our new immigration enforcement priorities. After consulting with the Attorney General, and in the exercise of my discretion in establishing national immigration enforcement policies, I hereby rescind the November 20, 2014 memorandum.

I don't mind if the clause is changed to, "Several months later and after considering several factors, including a preliminary injunction issued by the courts,"

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 18:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@SparklingPessimist: the article is under a WP:1RR as imposed by ArbCom. Hence why I am asking someone else to perform the reverts. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The article is not protected, so the semi-protected edit request is invalid. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Question for all of you

With the dramatic news today many of you are eager to edit the article. As an admin I added a brief note about the announcement, but clearly more could be said. I see many calls for the protection to be lowered. I have a question for you: if the protection is lowered, would you all agree to drop the "illegal vs. undocumented" war, not to make any edits to the article on that question for a few days? I think that is probably the only condition under which it is likely to be lifted.

In the meantime, I am open to reasonable requests to add necessary and uncontroversial material to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I have endorsed the request at Requests for Page Protection (I'm not going to implement it myself because I am now WP:INVOLVED here), with the proviso that if even ONE person does an edit changing "illegal" to "undocumented" or vice versa, the full protection will be restored. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Small price to pay for lowering protection, I guess. (FWIW, I was not involved in any of the edit warring before the article was locked up.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

A very sensible suggestion, MelanieN, for unblocking the situation. (I was also not involved in any of the edit warring before the article was locked.) And to prevent users from doing such an edit inadvertently – without having noticed the agreement – it may make sense to insert an edit comment after each occurrence of "illegal"/"undocumented" in the text. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The full protection has expired. I put on semi-protection for now. We'll see what Samsara has to say. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

While it's fine to hold off on changing the "undocumented" vs. "illegal" language, this is still something that we need to address. The issue is not going to go away so we might as well keep discussing it while we make other edits to the article.

In particular, while it is debatable whether "illegal alien" is appropriate at OTHER articles, here it clearly isn't. Specifically, the individuals covered by DACA have legal permission to reside in the US. That's the whole point of DACA. They are not "illegal aliens". They are people who entered the country illegally (more precisely their parents brought them in illegally) but their current status is not "illegal". Even with Trump rescinding DACA, since they still got 6 months. So yes, the wording needs to be changed. Volunteer Marek  16:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Definitely keep discussing it! I was just warning against resuming the edit warring at the article, which is likely to result in a renewal of the full protection. --MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Apparently no one wants to discuss it. Maybe because previously it was just a single IP editor insisting on the inappropriate wording. So I'm going to change it. Volunteer Marek  04:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

And of course once the edit is made the IP addresses immediately show up to revert. Why the fug isn't this article under permanent semi-protection or pending changes? It is extremely unfair to regular editors to place an article under a 1RR restriction/DS and then leave it open for IP addresses to run wild on it. Also very stupid. Volunteer Marek  08:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Request revert of sourced content

I would like this diff to be reverted please. The user alleges that this is "some shit that some politicians allege" and to not "conflate research with partisan rhetoric." But this is neither, since it's the argument used by the plaintiffs in Texas v. United States which was admitted in court by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and which is sourced through the Council of Foreign Relations, a reliable source.

Here are some excerpts from the lawsuit filed, for @Snooganssnoogans:'s convenience:

Page 24: The Plaintiff States will be forced to expend substantial resources on law enforcement, healthcare, and education.

Page 25: Other costs follow specifically from the extension of deferred action status. For instance, federal work authorization functions as a precondition for certain professional licenses in the Plaintiff States.

As this text is neither "some shit that some politicians allege" nor "partisan rhetoric" as the user alleges, the text must be reincorporated in the article.

This request is made per the WP:1RR rule that governs this article.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Everything alleged in a lawsuit isn't fact. Lawsuits aren't RS. To contrast the unsubstantiated claims of some Republican governors and attorney generals (the plaintiffs) with the best academic research available is inane. Just as it would be inane to contrast the research with whatever it is that Democratic governors and attorney generals are alleging in their pro-DACA lawsuits against the Trump administration. If you desperately want to insert partisan rhetoric into the lede, feel free to add a paragraph to the lede (provided that the main body covers this at some length) where proponents of DACA say it's good for the economy, moral etc. and opponents say it's unconstitutional, bad for the economy etc. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the plaintiffs arguments to have standing. The court doesn't accept arguments "just because;" they need to be well substantiated. The Council of Foreign Relations—a reliable source—explains this very well in the publication referenced in the text you removed:

Do Texas and the other states have standing to sue the federal government? In other words, can the states demonstrate that the president’s programs, if implemented, would cause them significant financial harm? The appellate court in this case—the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—found the states had legal standing.

Scholars are not the only ones that do research y'know?

Please refrain from accusing me of this and that, remain WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Please find any RS that substantiate that DACA causes significant financial harm to states. So far you have this "research" (a claim by a plaintiff that met the threshold for "legal standing") that has gone through the "peer-review" of a panel of judges (these judges are presumably all experts on this topic and would be readily accepted as peer-reviewers in any top journal on this subject) and meets "legal standing", whatever goes into determining that. It should be incredibly easy to find other RS to substantiate this if true, instead of relying on this indirect vague nonsense, given that the effects of DACA have been extensively covered by RS in the last weeks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It might be a good idea for you to research what legal standing entails. But here it is, from The Atlantic:

"Texas and the other states contend that by granting deferred action to an estimated five million undocumented immigrants, the Obama administration’s executive actions force the states to either provide services to them or change their state laws to avoid doing so. Texas, the only state whose standing was explicitly recognized by the court, specifically argued that the immigrants’ “lawful presence” would require the state to provide them with “state-subsidized driver’s licenses”and unemployment insurance."

"[...] two judges sided with the states and the lower court in Texas, citing both the impact on Texas and the breadth of the Obama administration's changes [...]"

Anything else?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thankfully, we don't allow original research or require that editors sleuth what legal concepts entail so that they can synthesize text. That's how poorly sourced, vague or misleading BS gets into articles. For instance, is it enough for the GOP governors to simply demonstrate that DACA requires them to provide some services to immigrants? Do they have to demonstrate net negative fiscal costs? Who knows? If it's the former, then it's so obvious that it doesn't belong in the article. If it's the latter, then a bunch of judges have absolutely no ability to determine if it's accurate, as they are not economists. Just as we don't let judges adjudicate whether climate change is occurring. There's a reason why lawsuits and rulings never get cited by social scientists seeking to determine causality. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, here's the definition of standing from Cornell: "that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable." The Fifth Circuit of Appeals affirmed that the plaintiffs had standing; in other words, as the reference from the Council of Foreign Relations explains, that the plaintiffs demonstrated that they would sustain harm because of the policy. Source: Fifth Circuit ruling, page 2: "Reviewing the district court’s order for abuse of discretion, we affirm the preliminary injunction because the states have standing[.]" It's as simple as that. Like I mentioned before, scholars are not the only ones that do research. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

False Claim Needs Correction!: "Economists agree no adverse effects to US economy due to DACA"

In the introduction, the claim that "economists agree that there are no adverse effects of DACA on the US economy" is false. This needs to be corrected, and I hope someone in the community (not prevented 'by the lock') will take this up. The false claim is in the introduction. Numerous studies demonstrate that, like with many other elements, reduced shortage of labor supply (spurred by more undocumented workers and/or by legalized formally illegal/undocumented workers (i.e. DACA) can lower production costs, helping wealthy business owners and immigrants, but there is an equally pernicious depressing effect on low-income and low-skilled wages for extant citizens in the US. Some even suggest that this preferentially undermines Hispanic and Black citizen wages. Also, the elasticity of capital supply and substitution among inputs of production play a decisive factor in how and to whom the costs and benefits of immigration employment (and legalization of existing illegal/undocumented labor force members (DACA)) accrue/fall. You can't factually claim that there are no adverse economic effects of DACA on the US economy. It is patently false. There may be benefits, but it is not the case that there are no adverse economic effects.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/IZA2013.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4902:6153:8483:DB0C:9677:AE18 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The claim is sourced. Neither of your sources are about DACA. As for the economics of immigration, Borjas is a minority view. The academic literature shows mixed effects for low-skilled natives but these effects, whether they are positive or negative, are small either way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

At a minimum, this sentence should be removed "Fact-checkers note that there are no reasons to believe that DACA has a major adverse impact on native-born American workers." None of the 3 sources contain anything supporting that sentences. Further, the economic impact of policies can rarely be "fact checked." The sentence is not only unsupported but inherently biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKG990 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

As the person who wrote that sentence, I'm 99% sure that one or all three sources say that almost literally. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: I couldn't find any information in the references that support that sentence either. Can you please provide us with either the specific text that supports it or other references that do? (Maybe the references got moved around?) Regarding the use of the term "fact-checkers" I wholeheartly agree that we should use a different term. In this particular case, we can use the term 'several journalists' instead since the four references provided were authored by journalists. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The first source I check, NPR: "On a large scale or in the long run, there is no reason to think DACA recipients have a major deleterious effect on American workers' employment chances." I'm not going to bother checking the other sources. And "hell no" on saying "several journalists". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed the sentence to reflect that since the sentence on this article was fundamentally different than the quote you provided. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Request revert of factual content

I need this diff to be reverted please. User alleges that the clause "is simply not true and not in accord with the rest of the article. DACA itself was not rescinded "a few months after its establishment". It is not rescinded now although a deadline has been set as explained in the next paragraph." But this is false and the memo published by DHS rescinding DACA proves otherwise:

I hereby rescind the June 15, 2012 memorandum.

This statement in effect rescinded DACA. What the user alleges are simply additional orders given by the DHS Secretary but DACA is rescinded.

Furthermore, since it seems the user misread the clause, I suggest to use the following clause instead: "Several months after its establishment DACA was challenged in courts and rescinded."

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 18:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@SparklingPessimist: the article is under a WP:1RR as imposed by ArbCom. Hence why I am asking someone else to perform the reverts. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: please stop reverting this information and familiarize yourself with the memorandum that rescinded DACA. Yes, the DHS Secretary proclaimed several additional provisions but DACA is officially rescinded. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree: DACA is rescinded, with implementation delayed for six months. That's exactly what our article says. I was in the process of explaining my edit here, but we edit-conflicted: I concur with removing the "fails verification" tag because the information is verified by multiple sources, including one cited on that very sentence. I do NOT agree with the addition of the sentence "Several months after its establishment" and removed it, because it is contradicted by other information in the same paragraph. DACA was established in 2012. Court challenges came in 2014 and were directed at the proposed expansion of DACA, not DACA itself. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The proposed sentence "Several months after its establishment DACA was challenged in courts and rescinded" - the sentence I removed - is wrong or misleading in multiple ways. 1) As I noted above, DACA was not "challenged in court several months after its creation"; court challenges came several years after DACA was created, and were directed at the expansion, not at DACA itself. 2) "...and rescinded" implies that it was rescinded several months after its establishment, which is false. 3) Furthermore, "challenged in courts and rescinded" implies that DACA was rescinded as a result of court action, which is false. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but this statement: "DACA is rescinded, with implementation delayed for six months" is not true. Please familiarize yourself with the aformentioned memo. DHS is no longer accepting any new DACA requests at all. Furthermore, as explained in an edit summary, the reference provided states that, "The administration also announced a plan to continue renewing permits for anyone whose status expires in the next six months[.]" But that is not what this article says. This article says that "implementation of the rescission was delayed six months to give Congress time to decide how to deal with the population that was previously eligible under the policy" which is simply not true, DACA was rescinded, period. Please provide reliable sources that support that sentence.

Second, DACA was rescinded several months after its establishment. The policy was established in June 2012 and rescinded in September 2017. Several months have passed between those two periods. Perhaps you would prefer to use the noun 'years' instead?

Finally, DACA was rescinded as a result of court action. Once again, please familiarize yourself with the memo that rescinded DACA. It says, and I quote, "Taking into consideration the Supreme Court’s and the Fifth Circuit’s rulings in the ongoing litigation [...] I hereby rescind the June 15, 2012 memorandum." I think that you are mixing the two clauses together and inferring that it was rescinded by the court which is not implied in the text. It simply states that it was rescinded and that before such rescission that it was challenged.

Suggestion Perhaps a better sentence to alleviate your concerns would be, "Several years after its establishment, DACA was rescinded after the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security took into consideration several factors." What do you think?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for this kind of sentence at all. It adds nothing. The information is already there in the paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph of the lede

User:‪Ahnoneemoos‬: Let's talk this out, as we are supposed to. You went ahead and added a version of this sentence of yours anyhow, in spite of our discussion here. Two sentences in fact, added to the first paragraph of the lede. Your edit summary was "rewriting lead; moving most important concepts to the front." You added

The policy was established by the Obama administration in June 2012 in order to provide prosecutorial discretion to federal agencies with limited resources. Several years later, however, the Trump administration rescinded the policy after taking into consideration two court rulings, a litigation against it, and a letter from the attorney general.[1]

I replaced the vague "several years later" with "in 2017", and I removed the "taking into consideration" stuff. My edit summary was "removing vague "several years"; removing justifications (litigation was only threatened; letter from the attorney general is still part of the Trump administration)"

You then tagged it {{why?}}, saying ‪"why is it OK to justify the establishment of the policy but not the rescission? there is a reason why the Trump administration rescinded the policy and it's explicitly explained in the memo but several users continue to remove this text‬." Well, in the first place, you were the one who added a justification for the establishment of the policy; IMO it is feeble, and it offers a reason that is nowhere found in the article text, and I would suggest we remove it as well. And in the second place, your choice of justifications for rescission was poor, as I explained in my edit summary. And in the third place, the justifications both for instituting the policy and rescinding it are explained in detail in the text, and that's where that kind of detail belongs - not the lede. So I propose removing the justifications both FOR the policy and AGAINST the policy from the lede paragraph. I would suggest we simply make the last sentence of the first paragraph read "The policy was established by the Obama administration in June 2012 and rescinded by the Trump administration in September 2017." There is additional information about the attempted expansion, lawsuits, and rescission in the next paragraph of the lede, and details in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Disagree WP:LEDE says that, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." The reasons behind the establishing and rescinding of DACA are the most important contents of the article. Not the protests, not the research, not partisan politics. But why the decision-makers acted the way they did. For instance, the concept of 'prosecutorial discretion' is the core driver behind DACA. So is the constitution and the rule of law behind its rescission. The sentence I added is not feeble as it is extracted from the DHS memo; in particular, from these two continous sentence: "Taking into consideration the Supreme Court’s and the Fifth Circuit’s rulings in the ongoing litigation, and the September 4, 2017 letter from the Attorney General, it is clear that the June 15, 2012 DACA program should be terminated. In the exercise of my authority in establishing national immigration policies and priorities, except for the purposes explicitly identified below, I hereby rescind the June 15, 2012 memorandum." That's the reason why Acting Secretary Duke rescinded DACA. This was nowhere to be found in the article until I added it. But you removed it. Why would remove such a critical piece of information I don't understand. NPOV says our job is to present both points of view. And that's exactly what my additions did. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

If the reasons cited in the HHS memo are "the most important contents" and "a critical piece of information" as you contend, how have we gotten along this far without them even being mentioned in the text - much less the lede? Anyhow, from a Wikipedia policy point of view, what you cited are the wrong reasons. Our article goes into great detail about what Attorney General Sessions said about why it was being rescinded. That's what Reliable Sources focused on, so that's what we focus on. You are trying to make a primary document be our most important source, and that's not how Wikipedia works. You could add this material about Duke's memo to the Rescission section of the text, and in fact that would be a good idea. But if we are going to give any reason for rescission in the lede (which I oppose), it should be the reasons we got from Sessions, per our Independent Reliable Source requirement. (Nit picks: Your sentence says "the Trump administration relied... on a letter from the attorney general"; that makes no sense; the attorney general is PART of the Trump administration. You mean that the acting secretary of HS relied on a letter from Sessions. But all of that is details way down in the weeds, not suitable for the lede. Also, the memo does mention two court decisions but I don't think the memo mentions "a litigation against it"; at that point the only litigation was against the expansion, with multiple states threatening to take legal action regarding DACA itself IF it wasn't rescinded by Sept. 5. Again, way too deep in the weeds and not suitable for the lede.) Likewise, we could expand upon "prosecutorial discretion" in the article text, but "prosecutorial discretion" was just the mechanism; it was not the reason for doing it.

Bottom line: I already removed the addition of justifications for rescission; I propose also removing the justification for creating the program that was added to the lede, leaving the single sentence I proposed above. And I would like to hear from other people on this issue. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You just defeated your own argument since we actually have mentioned the reasons behind the original DHS memo; it's in the background section: "The policy [...] was seen as a way to remove immigration enforcement attention from "low priority" individuals with good behavior." That's prosecutorial discretion; the basis for this whole thing. Furthermore, in this particular case, you are ignoring certain aspects of WP:PRIMARY. In particular, that policy establishes that, "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia." Sessions gave a recommendation to the DHS Acting Secretary, but it was the Acting Secretary the one that actually rescinded the policy. Furthermore, she cites very specific reasons as to why she made the decision and it was not because of Session's recommendation only. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

And just in case, here's an independent secondary reliable source on the reasons behind repealing DACA [1]: "As attorney general, it is my duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are enforced and that the constitutional order is upheld." Sessions also lambasted Obama for implementing an "unconstitutional exercise of authority[.]" It seems to me that you are the one nitpicking certain facts and ignoring others. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My intention is not to "nitpick certain facts and ignore others"; it is to ignore them ALL. As I have said all along, I think we should not mention anything about reasons in the lede. Not reasons to create the policy, not reasons to rescind it. The reasons are too numerous and too complex to condense into a few phrases as you are trying to do - a process which inevitably results in arguments about what reasons to include and what not to include. Simple solution: don't include ANY reasons in the lede. Put them in the text where they can be spelled out at whatever length is appropriate. And that is what I want to hear from other editors here: not so much "what reasons should we list in the lede?" but rather "should we list any reasons in the lede at all?" (BTW I think one thing we learned from the Comey dismissal is that the reasons spelled out in official documents and letters may not be the real reasons for taking that action.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you and I are going to agree, so let's allow other editors to chime in. In the meantime I won't re-add the reasons for the rescission but I ask in return that the why tag is left in place. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that the "why" tag has been removed by a third party, with the edit summary "explained in reference and body of article". --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, which begs the question why the third party didn't remove the justification for Obama's administration, since that, too, is explained in the article. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The third party did not remove any justifications. They just removed the "why?" tag that you had added, since they apparently felt it was unneeded or inappropriate. But since you bring up the justification for the Obama administration, I will remove it also - while we continue to discuss here (and hopefully attract some third opinions) whether any of such content belongs in the lede or not. I would have removed it earlier, at the same time as I removed the justification for rescission, except that I didn't notice it had been recently added; I thought it was longstanding content, which I am more cautious about removing. And then when I realized it was part of the same problem, I was temporarily barred from removing it by 1RR. But that time is past and I will remove it for consistency. The bottom line is that both justification phrases were added recently, by you, and were "challenged via reversion," by me, and now per DS we are discussing whether to reinstate that material to the lede or not. --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Meanwhile I encourage you to add this material that you feel is important to the article text. The 2017 DHS memo certainly should be cited in more detail in the Rescission section. The 2012 DHS memo is already cited in the Establishment section, but more could be added. --MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why this needs to be even discussed since this is already codified in our best practices, ie: WP:LEDE. Here are some excerpts FYI:

"A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell, and also cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows."

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

"[...] do not hint at startling facts without describing them."

"The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic"

The current lede does not conform to our best practices. It does not explain why the Obama administration established this policy, nor does it explain why it decided to expand it, nor does it explain why the states sued against that expansion, nor does it explain why the courts sided with the states on that lawsuit, nor does it explain why the Trump administration, after said ruling, rescinded the policy.

I don't see anyone else invoking our policies and guidelines on this.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This will be my last reply to you since I think it is the wall-of-text between the two of us that is keeping others from discussing this. Your interpretation of a policy does not make it policy. Nothing in those quotes you just cited requires us to try to explain WHY everybody did what they did. Our article does all the things those quotes say it should do. It is just your opinion that the reasons for enacting a policy (which would take an entire section to explain) must be summarized in the lede. The truth is that trying to explain in the lede why a policy was enacted is not part of our standard approach to such articles. A few examples: Clean Power Plan, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Executive Order 13769, etc. - it has not been our usual practice to try to explain the rationale for a policy in the lede. Meanwhile, I am baffled why you aren't adding this material (which you consider to be so vital) into the article text. Nothing is stopping you. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from people other than Ahnoneemoos and MelanieN

This section is for other people to comment on the question of whether the lede should summarize reasons for the enactment of the DACA policy and its rescission. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

DACA IS ALL LIES

WP:NOTFORUM --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"There are no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment." LIES: everyone knows many studies have been done showing a huge cost to denizens (those born in usa who's families had huge tax investment by "paying it forward" for many decades - these areas being turned to wholey debt driven and in debt practically over night - billions or trillions nation wide SIMPLY VANISHED). WIKIPEDIA ADMINS OWE ME AN APOLOGY for attacking my science articles (which i can still and will argue are without error) while promoting absolute POLITICAL lies articles. In my area, a haven for illegals: these people nearly killed me quite intently, had me jailed for a time without a trial politically, and have racial hiring practices hiring ONLY ILLEGALS (immediately given green cards) because they always vote democrat (the sitting politicians would be in jail a long time if Republicans ever got the podium during their lifetime). I'll state again: illegals have taken over complete job sectors (are infact in gov positions that "do the hiring"), and as a result complete sectors of government are racially controlled by illegals. Lastly: USA presidents are not Kings: they have absolutely no legal ability to announce a policy then announce there will be weapons pointed at anyone not implementing his own policy - especially when the policy steals taxes from others. (it's basically a tax evasion issue - but also a voting fraud issue)

Archiving

I think we need automatic archiving for this article. We have threads going back years. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Science study

Remind me to add this Science study when the page is no longer locked: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/08/30/science.aan5893 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• • A 2016 study found that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) did not significantly impact the number of apprehensions of unaccompanied minors from Central America.
  • A 2016 study found that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) increases labor force participation, decreases the unemployment rate and increases the income for DACA-eligible immigrants. The study estimated that DACA moved 50,000 to 75,000 unauthorized immigrants into employment.
  • Another 2016 study found that DACA-eligible households were 38% less likely than non-eligible unauthorized immigrant households to live in poverty.
  • A 2017 Science study found that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) lead to improved mental health outcomes for the children of DACA-eligible mothers. A 2017 Lancet Public Health study reported found that DACA-eligible individuals had better mental health outcomes as a result of their DACA-eligibility.

Conference of Catholic Bishops: reprehensible http://www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-157.cfm

Sources

00:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Amazing this is best proof yet that this topic is completely one side to the pro.everyone on of the "sources" are democratic or soros funded.in at least one case very openly pushing pro side how about that it will american taxpayers 750 billion dollars or likely costs to tax payers would be $6.2 billion a year in education expense alone.on last one written all the way back in 2004 they knew it would be pricey.Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget6thstreetfisherman (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. Also Wikipedia:Competence is required. Volunteer Marek  06:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 September 2017

I simply am inquiring to change some of the sentences to be rid of grammatical error, particularly in the punctuation. 73.51.104.37 (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Thanks for your suggestion, but we need to know specific things that you want changed. --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 September 2017

I feel like this page would benefit from the clarification that this is an executive order. 50.24.202.114 (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Thanks for the suggestion. The sources I have found do not say this is an executive order. It was an announcement by Sessions, followed by a statement by Trump. It's true that DACA was originally an executive order by Obama, but I'm not finding sources that say terminating it was an executive order by Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

"Illegal" vs. "undocumented"

Here's a place to discuss the frequent back-and-forth changes between "illegal aliens" and "undocumented workers." Joyous! | Talk 18:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Request citation for federal statute that is violated by "Illegal immigrants" as well as penalties. Suggest that absent such a statute (there is none), term is misleading. Being present in US without documentary support is a civil issue, with the only sanction being deportation. It is thus not comparable to shoplifting or other criminal offenses nor to status offenses. It might be comparable to having been found against in a civil matter such as slander or a civil rights class action or a debt default. No common language is parallel, no one says or writes that someone is an "illegal slanderer," an "illegal racist," or an "illegal debtor."

Wikipedia should be free of policial bias, and call things what they are. Everybody knows that undocumented is the word for illegal alien. Wikipedia acknowledges this too by redirecting undocumented alien -> illegal immigration. So why should the article text be different? 24.6.186.56 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

When you find yourself typing the phrase "everybody knows", apparently they don't. 24.182.239.225 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If people can't be illegal, they can certainly be criminal.67.8.239.238 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Around half of undocumented immigrants did not illegally immigrate and are therefore not guilty of a crime, only a civil violation of over-staying their visas. That is why calling undocumented people "illegal aliens" is wrong.Lucanio (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Lucanio

Over-staying their visa is still a crime. A "civil violation" is still a crime, and they do not have legal status, therefore they are illegal. Saying that they are just "undocumented" is like calling a shoplifter a "undocumented shopper". After all, they only lack a receipt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.178.156.22 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

By that silly logic, people who break the speed limit should be referred to as "illegal drivers". Gimme a break.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Your analogy is faulty. It would be far more correct to compare to drivers who do not have a license or whose license is suspended. It is illegal for them to drive, ie. they could be accurately described as illegal drivers. The issue with illegal aliens is not a lack of documentation. Many of them could get all the documentation in the world, but they could still never be legally present in the US do to their past crimes such as identity theft etc. 2600:1007:B00B:EEDE:3D1E:7022:FF4B:88F9 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The only reason for using "undocumented" instead of illegal is to avoid acknowledging the simple fact that the people concerned have broken the law, plain and simple.2600:1007:B00B:EEDE:3D1E:7022:FF4B:88F9 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

References

People who have over stayed their visa lack legal status to be in the US. Hence they are unlawfully present. While having a DACA stops them accumulating more "unlawful presence" time, it does not give them legal status. Therefore it is correct to say that they are illegal. Using the term 'undocumented' only serves to give the article a particular political slant, and takes away from it's objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.221.8.40 (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2017‎

Note: A proposal to use "undocumented" instead of the more accurate illegal was voted down at NPOV Notice Board — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.200.144.47 (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. There was no consensus either way. To the extent that anything came out of that, it's that it should be decided on case by case basis. Neither term is "banned".Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No one but you (Volunteer Marek) ever said anything about banning words. However, the discussion at NPOV Notice Board overwhelmingly voted against always using "undocumented" in place of the more accurate illegal. Of the votes against banning "illegal", they were fairly evenly split between always using "illegal" and deciding on a case by case basis. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

One more time. The discussion "voted" (which doesn't matter since Wikipedia isn't decided by votes) not to ALWAYS use the term "undocumented". The word "always" and the phrase "not always" does not mean the same thing as "never". Also, there's nothing "more accurate" about the word illegal. What does that even mean? People aren't "illegal". People commit "illegal" acts. However, all of this is beside the point, since Wikipedia usage is decided not by personal opinions but by usage in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek are yet again putting words in other peoples mouth. I did not use the word "never".

Second "illegal alien" is more accurate as it accurately describes the persons status.. Your argument rests on a meaningless splitting of the phrase and focusing only on the first word. Yes a person can not be illegal, the same as they cannot be undocumented. It is a two word phrase, where the first word "illegal" describes a subset of the group "aliens", who are persons that are not nationals of a country. A person who is not in a country legally are by definition illegal aliens as the lack legal status. The word illegal is referring to their status, not the person themselves.

The only reason for using the phrase "undocumented immigrant" is to try and avoid that fact the the persons concerned have broken the law, by either entering or staying in the country illegally.

As to usage in reliable sources, You state in your comment above, written at "12:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)" that "which comes down to how reliable sources do it. (I think they're split)", so by your own admission, reliable sources are split, so that argument holds no weight. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Who's splitting hairs? "Illegal alien" no more accurately describes a person's status than "undocumented migrant". You're confusing the word "accurate" with the notion "fits in with my ideological beliefs". I can say the exact the same thing about the phrase "undocumented migrant", where "undocumented" describes a subset of "migrant". Except "undocumentED" has that -ed in it which is what makes it clear that it, unlike "illegal" in "illegal alien", is describing an attribute. Regardless, that's all irrelevant cuz we do what reliable sources do. Which brings us to the second point...

Illegal is more accurate because it describes the real problem, that the person has broken the law. Undocumented imply's that the problem is a lack of documentation, but many illegal aliens have lots of immigration documentation, including visas's that they have overstayed and deportation orders. "undocumented" is simply a way to push the point of view that people should be given a pass on laws that you do not agree with. 70.194.12.74 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

... you say "so by your own admission, reliable sources are split, so that argument holds no weight." That makes absolutely no sense. My argument is that "illegal" vs "undocumented" should be decided on case by case basis and in this case "undocumented" is more appropriate ("illegal" in this context is just an indirect way of POV pushing). That is exactly what the fact that reliable sources are split suggest. Just because you can type "that argument holds no weight" on your keyboard, doesn't mean that that's actually true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Given reliable sources are split as you admit, how does that show "undocumented" is more appropriate in this case? By your comment, that fact that they are split says it should be determined on a case by case basis. This does not say that your preferred language should be used. You can't have it both ways. 70.194.12.74 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"Illegal immigrants" is grammatical nonsense, which is why mainstream newspapers like the NYT have rejected it in favour of "undocumented immigrants". It's not just political correctness. "Illegal immigration" is a perfectly fine term, but a person is not "illegal"; an action is illegal. On the basis of grammar alone, the term "illegal immigrants" should be changed to "undocumented immigrants" or "people who have immigrated illegally" wherever it occurs. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"Illegal immigrants" is not grammatical nonsense. You're ignoring the meaning of the word "immigrant", which indicates you conducted an act of immigration. The preceding word (legal or illegal) indicates whether that act was conducted legally or not. For example, a tenant indicates you occupy a house/dwelling. A legal tenant would occupy that dwelling legally (e.g., with a lease). An illegal tenant would not. This is nothing more than politics and messaging. Undocumented, on the other hand, simply indicates the immigrant is lacking documentation of their immigration. A person's illegal immigration may or may not be documented (e.g., your plane ticket, your expired visa, are all documentation of that act of immigration). Not only is "undocumented" political, it's not even accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKG990 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not stated that the person would be illegal, but that the person in question is an immigrant (which you do not even challenge), and one which did so breaking the law, thus illegally. So this is the appropriate term.

In any case, undocumented immigrant is certainly wrong, because those persons are not "undocumented"; in fact, they do have documents identifying their identity, citizenship (of Mexico etc.), so they are not undocumented. It is even completely ridiculous to say someone who had a temporary work permit under DACA was "undocumented"... the work permit under DACA certainly is documentation...

Further, undocumented implies that these persons immigrated legally, but for some reason lack the documents, because they lost them or forgot to apply, so they just need to go to the authorities to have those documents issued. --Tscherpownik (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Only far-left extremists and those who support illegal immigration say "undocumented immigrants" or "immigrants without documentation." Those are bizarre and nonsensical euphemisms used by the far-left fringe, such as Mexican supremacists and Democrats, in order justify their breaking the law and demographic engineering to ensure electoral domination. "Illegal immigrants" is the established, mainstream term used in newspapers such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Associated Press; and "illegal aliens" is the established legal term. --36.67.86.253 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Iam always confused every time this topic comes up there is large debate what there called title 8 clear defines it they are illegal aliens that is the proper legal term for someone that crosses the border at a place other than a us checkpoint . I see a bunch of emotional arguments and people that want to down play the hole debate i will state my feelings on the article below but the simple point is a fact is a fact someone already made a legal definition for the person and that is what should be follow to keep topic neutral 6thstreetfisherman (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District of Texas dealt with this specific issue when he issued a preliminary injunction on Feb. 16, 2015, against President Barack Obama’s immigration amnesty plan. This was in U.S. v. Texas, the lawsuit filed by 26 states to stop the “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents” program announced by Obama in November 2014. This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction. The justices split four-to-four on the case, leaving the injunction in place and the president’s plan dead for the rest of his term. In footnote two of his Feb. 16 order, Hanen says this: "The Court uses the phrases ‘illegal immigrant’ and ‘illegal alien’ interchangeably…The Court also understands that there is a certain segment of the population that finds the phrase ‘illegal alien’ offensive. The Court uses this term because it is the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012)." 186.148.94.6 (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Minors arriving after DACA dates?

Everybody is arguing about extending, renewing, or replacing the law establishing legal status of the minors who arrived illegally before June 15, 2012. Is there a move to extend the DACA arrival date to include minors who have arrived illegally after the original DACA parameters? Or, are there moves to introduce a new law (DACA 2?) to apply to those who have arrived illegally after the original date parameters set by Pres. Obama? Pete unseth (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

DACA is not, and never was a law. It was an executive order issued by then president Obama that has since been rescinded. 170.178.156.22 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph 3

Most of paragraph 3 is a repeat of info already in Section Impact, so why is it here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.82.194 (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Section Migration Flow

"The 2015 GAO report said perceptions of U.S. immigration policy played a part, specifically because some believed that prospects for a broad overhaul of U.S. immigration laws would include a path to citizenship for those already in the country. " Which would include DACA, even if it isn't specifically specified. Rendering this, "did not mention DACA", misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.82.194 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Description Tense

The synopsis at the top of the page is currently written using the past tense, while much of the body is written using the present tense. These should be unified. 152.16.191.114 (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph 3/sentence 3, reads like position paper

Not only does this statement read like a position paper, it is supported by some dead links. "There are no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment while most economists say that DACA benefits the U.S. economy.[10][11][12][13] "

1. 10, NPR: "For many Americans, the influx of immigrants hurts their prospects significantly." is not saying generic "no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment"
2. 11, page is gone
3. 12, AP: There is nothing in this article so much as even inferring "no known major adverse impacts from DACA on native-born workers' employment"
4. 13, nothing there, no link at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.82.194 (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

→ I added an NPOV tag to this section. My attempts to address these issues continue to be reverted by an overly aggressive and biased editor. Smit8678 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Cite # 11

Hi, not confident editing a citation on my own. Citation # 11 is a dead link, however I found the article directly on the AP's website (the original link was New York Times republication of an AP article): https://apnews.com/70d54a71362e4d90ad1959c8d33266ac 100.40.110.170 (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hey, 100.40.110.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), thanks--you can do this: all I had to do was this. (The only real trick is that the thing was cited five times, so you have to look for the one that has the complete citation.) Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

1.) In the Introduction of the article's last paragraph's first three sentences and last sentence use statistics in support of the program. These sentences are unnecessary as the exact same statistics are used later in the article. I would like to take out theses sentences because they repeat statistics given in under the "Impact" section.

2.) The last paragraph in the "Establishment" section is repeated almost word for word further down in the "Expansion" section. Therefore the paragraph in the "Establishment" section should be deleted so that the article isn't repeating the same information. That being said the sentence in the "Expansion" section in the beginning of the second paragraph: "However, in December 2014,Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (a similar program)." has a subtle political bias. The phrase, "all with Republican governors" adds an unnecessary political dimension to the sentence which serves to portray the Republican party in a negative way. If you remove the phrase from the sentence it makes it politically neutral while still maintaining the original idea of the sentence.

3.) In the "Reaction" section of the article the last sentence is a bit confusing and unnecessary given that Mitt Romney ran for President fives years ago. It should be given greater context as to why it is in this section (for example add that it was one of his campaign points or promises during his run for office) or it should be removed completely from the article.

4.) Citation number thirteen is cited four times throughout the article however, the actual citation was never defined in the citation section. I will delete the sentences using citation thirteen if they are not accompanied by any other citation.TM6031 (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This is citation 13: http://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/spinning-facts-daca/. Be so kind as to add it. Other editors botched the citation up after I originally added it. I vehemently disagree with point #1: the lede should summarize the content of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

5.) I would recommend reviewing the last part of the introduction. While the initial paragraphs present a history of the program, the last paragraph presents as advocacy for the program itself. There are definite attempts to present DACA in an explicitly favorable light (i.e., selectively presenting favorable statistics to create an availability heuristic) rather than sticking solely to a description of the program and its history. I have attempted to remove the overt bias language to present a more objective presentation; however an overly aggressive editor continues to revert the editing changes.Smit8678 (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The content is reliably sourced. There's nothing cherry-picked in those paragraphs. The complaint is baseless. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

While they may be reliably sourced in that they are links to outside sources, it is not appropriate for the introduction to the page. Before much, if any, explanation for the program has occurred in the article, you have engaged in overt advocacy for a particular point of view. These statements would be appropriate for a separate sections toward the end of the article, after the explanations about the program itself, in a section regarding "statistics," "controversy," or "criticisms," not in the introduction. You are "priming the pump" so to speak before the program has been explained, hence the appropriate NPOV tag.

Per WP:LEDE, we should summarize the article. A large part of the article summarizes research on the impact of DACA. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Also per WP:LEDE, it should be presented in a neutral point of view, which was the tag inserted. This tag is appropriate considering that more than one editor (please see sections in the talk page) have concerns that there is a POV problem. And yet, the POV concerns are brought up, you engage in an aggressive edit war to revert my edits and attempts to spur discussion among editors, and then you send me a message warning me about reverting edits, when you were the one to initiate the edit-reversions to begin with.Smit8678 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You have violated WP:3RR in these edits. The fact that someone else on the talk page at one point or another complained about anything, does not make it OK to introduce nonsensical tags in the lede of the article. What exactly is it about the paragraph that is non-neutral? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I will not go into this with you again. I have previously clearly stated my concerns, and others in this talk have also clearly noted their concerns. You are free to disagree with them. That is the beauty of Wikipedia. The {{WP:NPOV}} tag is meant to direct people to the talk section to spur debate to reach consensus, which, based on your repeated removals of the tag, I can only surmise you do not want to happen. This is personal problem on your part, not on mine. Smit8678 (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 is not Neutral, and expresses a particular POV

I realise that this issue has already been raised, and being inexperienced at posting comments on Wikipedia articles, I apologise in advance for any transgression of Wikipedia conventions. I do however feel that Paragraph 3 represents a subjective POV and attempts to influence the reader towards a certain viewpoint. As such, it should not be included on the page. It discusses rather than informing; does not present a neutral standpoint, and does not add anything to the article. All sentences start with (e.g.) : ...Research shows that, ...Studies have shown that, ...There are no known major adverse impacts, ...most economists say that, and ...There is no evidence that.

These are all attempts to present a particular standpoint as being proven, correct, reasonable and relevant, when they are only in fact representing a biased POV.

As far as I can see, there is no reason for any part of the paragraph from: There is no evidence that... to ...within the United States to be included in this article. --Pdadme (talk)

The language is fully consistent with the text in the body of the article and mirrors the language of the reliable sources that the text relies on. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The third paragraph is sourced, that is not a problem. But this seems a long paragraph in an introductory section, while the topic of this paragraph is discussed in more detail in a section on down below. Seems this paragraph should be reduced, at least. Comments?? Pete unseth (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Statistics with grammar mistake

"There is no evidence that DACA-eligible individuals are more likely to commit crimes than any other person within the United States"

This sentence is based on statistical facts, but, because of the grammar used, it is a complete lie.

I will explain.

For the purpose of explanation, let us presume that: 1 those within the DACA group can be ascribed a 1 percent probability of committing a crime. 2 The non-DACA group has a 2 percent probability.

The phrase "Any other person" means that a newborn baby in an incubator who is in a coma has just as much or more of a likelihood of committing a crime as a DACA person.

Whatever your political ideology, this is far from Wiki level of quality.

Also, keep in mind that technically ALL DACA persons were 100 percent likely to commit a crime, because none of them were here legally before they registered for the DACA program.

Please keep in mind that this comment is not denying the MEANING of the article, it is stating only that because of poor grammar you all look like idiots. Sorry.

And no one can correct the grammar because page is locked.

Please keep up the quality level of Wiki - it is the best and most reliable source of information in the world (opinion statement - no reference given) Romney

"There is no evidence that there is higher criminality incidence among the group of DACA registered individuals than among the general population of the United States of America."

("United States" may also refer to the United States of Mexico, which has different crime statistics.)

Good point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)