User:Isouza1/sandbox

Improving Wiki Article

Introduction

According tot he 2016 American Community Survey, There are a total of 42,193,781 foreign born persons in the United States. From the 42.2 million immigrants, 350,091 are Brazilians, corresponding .83% (350,091/42.2million) of the foreign born population (2012-2016 American Community Survey).

Lawful Permanent Resident Status

Brazilians obtained the highest number of lawful permanent residence status between 2000 and 2009 and many were eligible to neutralize. During that time, 115,404 Brazilians received permanent status and from 2010 through 2016, already 80,741 persons had received theirs. Still, it seems as if many received status, but if you compare to the total foreign born Brazilian population, the numbers are small. In 2010 the Brazilian foreign born population was 340,000 and only 12,057 (or 4% of) persons obtained legal status. Of the 336,000 foreign born Brazilians in 2014, only 10,246 (or 3%) received permanent status in the same year. Even though few people are obtaining permanent status, there was a noticeable spike previously mentioned between 2000-2009. The increase in acceptance was due to two main factors: the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and economic and political turmoil in Brazil . The top four class of admissions for Brazilians obtaining lawful permamanet status in the U.S. in 2016 was family-sponsored, employment, and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Each category of admissions makes up of 4%, 25%, and 68% respectively of the total individuals .

I will add a graph to "Brazilian American

communities"

Brazilians Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status: Fiscal Year 1860-2016. Source: Yearbook of Statistics 2016.

Brazilians obtaining lawful permanent resident status by the top 6 states in the U.S. Source: Yearbook of Statistics 2016.

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Article Evaluation

1.    Is everything in the article relevant to the topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

a.    I think most of the article is relevant. The relevant information should be explained in more detail such that each explanation for the theories aren’t so overly simplistic. Something that really distracted me was the introduction. I don’t agree with the definition of human migration stating that “movement is often over long distances and from one country to another.” Most moments aren’t over long distances and most are done internally. Other times, the author mixes up theories or adds irrelevant information to the segment he or she is writing.

2.    Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear biased toward a particular position?

a.    The article seems to be neutral, but maybe too neutral. Maybe that is the reason why the author is simplistic in his argument because he or she was trying to be neutral with the article.

3.    Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

a.    The Neoclassical Economics Theory was underrepresented because the author doesn’t empathize that people who want to migrate are individuals making rational decisions. Also the article lacks the mechanism in which individuals are able to follow through these decisions: cost benefit analysis and transportation costs.

b.    For New Economics of Labor Migration Theory, I believe the following support is irrelevant because it seems like the author is mixing up New Economics of Migration Theory. This theory builds off of Neoclassical Economics stating that households and communities are the new decision makers to minimize risk and reduce relative deprivation. This theory is overrepresented because it adds information that are more relevant.

                                             i.     “Recent research has examined a decline in U.S. interstate migration from 1991 to 2011, theorizing that the reduced interstate migration is due to a decline in the geographic specificity of occupations and an increase in workers’ ability to learn about other locations before moving there, through both information technology and inexpensive travel.[18] Other researchers find that the location-specific nature of housing is more important than moving costs in determining labour reallocation.”

4.    Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

a.    The first citation that sticks out to me is when the author gives the top ten migration corridors worldwide. There is no citation to make such claim and draw connections between countries even though it might be true migration patterns.

b.     In many occasions the author does not cite the source or the date in which the information was gathered.

5.    Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

6.    Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

a.    I feel like there are many things that could be added to this page. One idea would be to add the theories we went over class. Another idea, which I think would make the most sense, is to add current and past events that shape each theory and current immigration data for most emigrated and origin countries.

b.    The article fails to mention any political drive that mold the patterns of migration, such as restrictions and rights.

7.    Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

a.    People are discussing how some of the article needs revision, has dated information, needs more definitions and causes of immigration. More sources of push and pull factors that we covered from all readings we had.

b.    Another claim is to change the duplicate paragraphs and images.

8.    How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

a.    The article is rated as C-Class which means that the article is missing essential information and needs to be improved.

b.    The article is part of several wikiProjects in archeology, anthropology, human genetic history, history, economics and human rights.

9.    How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

a.    The Wikipedia article discusses the topic if a superficial level. It lacks depth of each theory, variety in graphics, events that shapes the history of immigration, role of the state, social networks, and current events.

b.    It was very surprising to me how the article does not reference any of the immigration theorists we have been discussing.