Talk:U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

The title of this article is wrong, it isn't the "U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement," it is simply "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eddief (talk • contribs) 22:47, October 18, 2005 (UTC)

I will move the page to the appropriate title. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 10:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Is not the FBI the largest investigative arm of DHS? Why is ICE listed as such?

No, the FBI is not a part of DHS, it is part of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Non-encyclopedic text moved from article to discussion 3 Section on Hiring has no citations; is it really true? --Allyn 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 4 Recent Reverts

[edit] NPOV

I removed a large part of the "hiring process" section which was copied partly from ice.gov, used the phrase "our country", etc. I was then disappointed to see phrases such as 'The motto of ICE, "Integrity, Courage, and Excellence," is represented by the approximately 15,000 people ICE employs'. The criticism section cites no sources and minimizes criticism using phrases such as "there are those who feel". Overall, the article appears to have a significant pro-ICE bias. Rhobite 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone replaced the paragraph so I'll attempt to explain my objection a little more. Saying they hire "the best people America has to offer" is meaningless and unverifiable. It's a fine statement for them to make on their recruiting web site, however meaningless superlatives have no business in a Wikipedia article. Similar objections to the statements that the process of becoming an employee is "extremely arduous", and that their agents "make a personal contribution to the safety and security of our country" (please don't assume that all readers are American). I hope this explains why I have reverted this paragraph again. Rhobite 12:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

-The following statements are fact and non-biased, nor are they meaningless superlatives. Therefore, they are not subject to NPOV guidlines.

"As the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement attracts and hires the best people America has to offer."

"The broad law enforcement mission and authorities of ICE carries unusual trust and responsibility, therefore, the process of becoming an ICE employee is extremely arduous and very competitive."

These statements are true and not written as a sales-pitch. Nor are they on the ICE.gov website. These statements simply describe, in a very general but realistic fashion, the quality of applicants ICE attracts and the difficulty in getting hired. It's disappointing to have statements completely deleted from an article yet have no suggestive correction or suitible substitute offered. User:JasonSr 14:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles must follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Statements which discuss the "best people America has to offer" are by their nature unverifiable. Do you have a source for this statement? What if I believe that the best people in America are actually hired by the Army Rangers? How are we supposed to resolve our two opinions when they are not based on factual data? I'm removing this text again and asking for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Also, as Wikipedia doesn't make recommendations, we do not direct people to apply to ICE - I've modified the hiring paragraph to rephrase the recommendation. Rhobite 02:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. These are emotive statements based on loaded word-choices and absolutely violate WP:NPOV in my opinion. Arker 02:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Found my way here via WP:3O. I would have to agree. If we have reliable sourcing, we could easily explore the quality of people that are attracted or hired -- if it's been studied, it seems a perfectly legitimate thing to mention. The first statement above ("best people") really does sound like a hiring ad, no offense. The second statement seems more acceptable; I can see why others might not quickly approve, but only the first one shoots up major red flags, for me. Writing from a neutral point of view is amazingly difficult -- when writing almost anywhere else, we're encouraged to stake out a POV without even really thinking about it, and old habits die hard. Just takes a bit of getting used to (and peer review doesn't hurt). I appreciate the good-faith effort to improve the encylopedia, regardless. Cheers! Luna Santin 09:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous three posters. Nice try, Jason Sr. -- Autumninjersey 17:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-encyclopedic text moved from article to discussion

The following text was removed from the last paragraph of section 6, Critisism because it appears to be non-encyclopedic and contains rhetorical discussions and personal opinion. Perhaps someone familiar with the legal position of Federal enforcement of Child Pornography laws as appliece to ICE can edit the passage into something that can be included in the article.

Child pornography seems to have little to do with customs and immigration, but the sensitivity of the subject allows ICE to make these arrests. The constitutionality of this role of ICE, and whether these investigations and arrests are within the department's jurisdiction, is not clear or explicit. (The person that placed this criticism is obviously unfamiliar with child pornography investigations or is an advocate of child pornography him (or her) self. ICE indeed possesses the constitutional authority to enforce federal law relating to 1. All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States (including U.S. citizens and aliens) 2. Laws relating to the United States border. 3. Commerce. Remember, the "commerce clause" of the United States Constitution dictates (paraphrase) that Congress may enact laws relating to COMMERCE amongst and between the several states. Child pornography (like narcotics, weapons, humans, goods, etc.) is commerce that crosses state (and mostly) international borders. That is why ICE is charged with enforcing child pornography (and sex tourism) laws, however, unpopular you may think it to be. Furthermore, your statement that "...the sensitivity of the subject allows ICE to make these arrests" is a weasel word phrase based on your personal opinion. Since it isn't based on fact I does not belong in an article of encyclopedia quality. Additionally, due to my own ignorance, I don't know how to place this response to your criticism in the discussion section (where your criticism and my response belong) so perhaps someone more familiar with Wikipedia can.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TGC55 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC).--TGC55 17:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC) (man! that bot is fast)

[edit] Section on Hiring has no citations; is it really true? --Allyn 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello:

I added a note to the section on Hiring that it does not have sources. I dispute the accuracy of this section because of some sources that I have seen in the past that morale was very low and that it is not a desireable place to work; people are using it as a last resort for a place of employment. --Allyn 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Reverts

Okay, I believe the edits by Bankbryan are fairly valid and I would like to make these recommendations:

• Make the table header read, "US Immigration and Customs Enforcement," as their website reads, but within the article, change the references to ICE, instead of US ICE, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That would help the readability.

• Leave the motto in the table with the bolded first letters, showing the relationship between the motto and the agency's acronym. The motto should not have the bold features elsewhere in the article.

• Leave out U.S. in all further references to ICE in the article.

• Special agents should be capitalized when directly referencing their positions within the United States Government, as well as any other positions within ICE.

• Does the order of the article sections really matter?

Just some ideas. Thoughts?

Lasdlt (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)