Talk:African immigration to Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Journalist[edit]

I'm an israeli journalist conducting research for an article on african asylum seekers and i was shocked to see what wikipedia had allowed on its website... false information, full of biased, loaded language... it seemed to constitute incitement towards african asylum seekers.

Have seen too many articles about israel like this... that were obviously written by some government employee (read: hasbara).

Used to love wikipedia but i will be boycotting it from here on out as it is grossly irresponsible.

If there is a false information — don't blame wikipedia, just fix it, or write it on the talk page, and I'll try to improve it. komap (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed it. Now lets see if you "try to improve it" or revert it and I get some kind of sanction. This has been over a year waiting. --69.246.120.240 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article needs work. Even the first sentence the term "undocumented workers" is completely innappropriate, since many of the immigrants are not working. The article should not reflect simply a PC or leftist point of view, rather it should be verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.65.125 (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TheCuriousGnome, I agree with your renaming to "Illegal immigration" from "infiltration", but I still believe that the term must be discussed in the article about. It is massively used in press and Israeli goverment organisations in English language (google ). If you don't like my paragraph about it, please write your own. הסתננות and הגירה בלתי חוקית are not the same, and this should be stated, as well as the reason why Israel is avoiding calling them asylum seekers or refugees. komap (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "loaded" is far more relevant than expressed above. I am also inclined to question the motives behind development of the content of this page. I am a critic of Israel and yet I'm also shocked coming here. How many editors have read Demographics of Israel or related pages before trying to nail this page down. Irresponsible is right. The Population Matters 2011 overshoot index[1] ranked Israel as the 3rd most dependent region in the World after Singapore and Kuwait. Honestly there are better issues to be pursuing than this. Please, for everyone's sake and for the sake of rationality, back off. Gregkaye (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing[edit]

A recent edit introduced the claim that "Most African migrants are generally regarded to be legitimate asylum seekers by the UNHCR". This was sourced to two references; this one, which does not back up this claim, and this, which is a letter to the newspaper, and therefore not a reliable source. I've removed both and added the {{fact}} tag. The claim is probably true, but I can't find any source that confirms it, including UNHCR reports like this, this or Israel, which (from a quick read) do not seem to say much about whether the migrants are genuine asylum seekers or not. Number 57 11:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Copied from talk page discussions]

I see you referenced the UNHCR claim to this document. I've had a quick read through, and I can't find where it says that the majority are legitimate asylum seekers. Could you point me to the specific bit? Thanks, Number 57 12:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, you are right. It doesn't say "legitimate" asylum seekers, just asylum seekers. So you can remove the word "legitimate". However, they are referred to as refugees, which is, to my knowledge, the same thing as a "legitimate" asylum seeker. The previous revisions of the article referred to them as "infiltrators" and "migrant workers", so I just wanted to change that. You can re-word it how you please, so long as you remain impartial. I'd suggest simply referring to them as "asylum seekers". JDiala (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't even see where it says most are asylum seekers. Number 57 12:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are all referred to as asylum seekers. It's used as a blanket term, so we can assume the UNCHR believes that the migrants are asylum seekers. Again, you can re-word that sentence how you please, just refer to them how the UNCHR does. JDiala (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • We can't assume anything. I'll remove the UNHCR bit and leave it at the NGOs. Number 57 13:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I don't see how much more clear the document can be. It referred to them as "asylum seekers" in every instance. From that, we can conclude that the UNCHR believes that the African migrants to Israel are asylum seekers. JDiala (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you're not going to respond to my argument, then I'm afraid I can't just let you revert it. The report clearly refers to them as asylum seekers.. JDiala (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, but it doesn't say anything about "most". Number 57 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, it does not. It, however, refer to them as asylum seekers. Therefore, the statement "the UNCHR believes that the migrants are asylum seekers" is not invalid. JDiala (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • But then all the report is saying is that there are asylum seekers coming, so isn't relevant to a sentence about whether most of the arrivals are asylum seekers or not. Can we keep this together on the article's talk page, rather than disjoined here? I am going to copy across all the comments. Thanks, Number 57 16:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


What you're saying makes no sense. If the report says there are asylum seekers coming, then that implies that the arrivals are asylum seekers. I want to rephrase the sentence from its current form into something like this: "The migrants are regarded to be asylum seekers by various human rights organizations and the UNHCR". I want to eliminate the word "most" and "legitimate", since their refugee status and the percentage of the asylum seekers which are actually seeking asylum is a separate issue. It is not relevant. Their legitimacy is not the issue here, since an asylum seeker need not be legitimate (an asylum-seeker is someone who says he or she is a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been definitively evaluated). In other words, statistical analysis or measuring the percentage of which are "real" asylum seekers is unnecessary. This is about what the report says. If the report states that the migrants are asylum seekers, which they clearly do, then that is what they are.
The UNHCR clearly refers to them as asylum seekers even though they don't recognize their legitimacy as to whether or not they are true refugees. The UNHCR report calls these people asylum seekers; therefore, we state that "the UNHCR considers them to be asylum seekers". I don't see why this has to be so complicated.
I am doing this because previous edits refer to them as "infiltrators", "immigrants", or "migrant workers", and if it is brought to light that they are referred to as asylum seekers by various international organizations, then it will dispel that nonsense. Readers get the misimpression that the African immigrants are analogous to Mexican immigrants to the US, or other immigrants to Western countries. The article needs to make a clear distinction between those forms of immigration, such as migration to the UK or the US for economic or social purposes, and asylum seeking from war-torn countries, which is what, according to the report, African refugees are doing by seeking asylum, and when there is an international body and a reliable source referring to them not as immigrants but as asylum seekers, then it clearly needs to be mentioned. JDiala (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you put "most" in the original sentence then? Number 57 17:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that asylum seekers should not be referred to as illegal immigrants; allthough their stay in Israel will become illegal if their asylum application have been finally turned down and a decision to extradict them have been made. Maybe the word migrants may be appropriate some places when we are referring to both asylum seekers and those who are in the country illegally? Iselilja (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undocumented workers?[edit]

I think this is a constructed formulation that leads to weird consequences. An example from the article: "Israeli authorities grant a temporary residence permit to the undocumented workers". Someone who has a temporary residence permit is obviously no longer undocumented. Is "illegal immigrant" still the only precise and appropriate term? Or are their others, such as "without legal residence permit" or similar. Heptor talk 22:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illegality[edit]

A person cannot be illegal, only their actions can be illegal! This wiki page is pasted full of the term "illegal immigrant". This term is a made up media tag that is just plain incorrect, because its not that the person is illegal, but their act of entering the country is illegal. I'm changing all instances of "illegal immigrant" to "immigrants who arrived illegally". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.5.135 (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Illegal immigration from Africa to Israel. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 11:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Illegal immigration from Africa to Israel. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of neutrality, possible bias for political agenda[edit]

Article characterises all immigration (which necessarily includes legitimate, legal migration, for a variety of reasons) as either illegal or asylum-seeking. General negative, one-sided approach, especially the opening paragraphs that refer to the 'phenomenon of immigration' while entirely omitting regular settling and residency. TheOrangePeril (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is not a NNPOV incipit--Dans (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:Too vague and unconstructive. It's not clear what specific changes you are proposing, nor which text you are objecting. All content in article is properly sourced. If you think additional information is necessary to balance article, feel free to add it.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requires update[edit]

This article requires updating. Things like the Israel-Sudan peace agreement aren't mentioned so it makes the first paragraph outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impossiblegend (talk • contribs) 19:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Merge. Per WP:MERGECLOSE. Deerove (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to merge Israeli policy for non-Jewish African refugees here. See WP:OVERLAP. Deerove (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_immigration_to_Israel&oldid=1204572716"