Talk:Birthright citizenship in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iairruni, Jose2495. Peer reviewers: Iairruni.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aliyahwan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jingyitinali. Peer reviewers: Kenney11, Pupperitto.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Current U.S. Law" section needs rework

It is historically incorrect, and possibly editorializing to claim that: "Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states..."

The question of how babies obtain citizenship was not first settled by the 14th Amendment. The current language suggests that automatic newborn citizenship wasn't conferred by law prior to 1868...it was.

It is inconsistent with the "non-editorializing" policy to present the language of the Citizenship Clause as having uncontestable interpretation, at a time when the official interpretation is highly controversial and public opinion disfavors that interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbierre (talk • contribs) 14:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As others have said, this article is more like editorializing in favor of automatic birthplace citizenship than a fair portrayal of the 14th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Citizenship Clause be merged into Birthright citizenship in the United States. Because the Citizenship Clause is so important to birthright citizenship, it is important to carefully cover that clause in this article. Having a separate article about it is redundant, inconvenient to readers, and it is likely that editors who are only aware of one of the two articles will create contradictions between the two articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment: I don't oppose at this point, but I do disagree and I am leaning towards opposition. AFAICS, the Citizenship Clause is not relevant at all re birthright citizenship. Few citizens aspire to the Presidency and all who do or have done are or have been birthright citizens (offhand, I cannot think of an exception). Some aspirants may run into questions re whether Birthright and Natural Born are equivalent, but that doesn't have anything to do with their claim to birthright citizrnship. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• It seems to me the article about how the exact circumstances of a US citizen's birth would affect the citizen's eligibility for the presidency is "Natural-born-citizen clause". I think these two articles should be confined to how US citizens can be citizens from birth, and leave any distinctions among various methods with respect to presidential eligibility be confined to the "Natural-born-citizen clause", except for a one-sentence referral to that article. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Weak support: I agree, in principle, that these two topics overlap sufficiently to justify a merger. Everyone should realize that the necessary rewrite (combining two long and complex articles) isn't going to be easy. I also agree with Jc3s5h that a merger should not involve the Natural-born-citizen clause article; I trust Wtmitchell now understands the difference between the Citizenship and Natural-born-citizen clauses. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You got me there, Rich. It wasn't lack of understanding, but it was self-garble in composing my comment. I was thinking NBC clause but I didn't type that and didn't catch the error before saving my comment. Sometimes I do rush out a WP-talk comment under pressure to get on to other things, and the rush does sometimes result in self-garble—besides which I have always been hopeless at proofreading my own stuff. I'm a repeat offender in both of those areas. My bad. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose at this point - two long and complex articles - with this one at least being in the news - will be hard to merge and I don't see a particular reason to do so. I'll remove the merge tags today unless anybody objects. There's no reason to have this drag on beyond 1 month. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Smallbones -- substantively two different topics (although related), each one long and expandable; also, the editing task involved with a merger might get lost like in the The Blair Witch Project.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, also as per Smallbones -- It's practical to have a fork at these two topics, especially in that much more debate and writing can be expected down the "birthright citizenship" line. Rather than "incovenient to readers" to have the topics split, I think it would be inconvenient to have a large (and growing larger) article, with the topics mashed together. Bruiserid (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the tag - essentially if nobody give a real support after a month, I don't think it's going to pass. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Historical background?

Does the concept of birthright citizenship, as practiced in the North American British Colonies, then the United States of America, extend backwards beyond the British Common Law? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

$2.4B vs. $24B

In this recent edit, User:Dsalge972 corrected an incorrect figure of $24B to the $2.4B figure present in sources cited in support of the earlier erroneous figure. The erronious figure seems to have originally come into the article as "2 4 billion" in March 2012 here, to have been changed to "24 billion" in June 2012 here, and to have persisted in the article throughout the years since then.

Good catch!. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

correct birthright citizenship in America

Your article is incorrect. Jus sanguinis is not a method of birthright in the U.S. The Constitution provides birthright citizenship only under jus soli since its mandate that one be born under the jurisdiction of the United States. While jus sanguinis was available in England it has never been available in this country. Check William Blackstone's article in 1765 which indicates that one can only have one allegiance. check Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), checkThe Civil Rights Act of 1866; the discussion of Congress on its intent and application of the meaning "complete jurisdiction thereof" is "not owing allegiance to anybody else"; Osborn v. Bank; United States v Perkins 17 F.S. 177 (D.D.C. 1936)where a federal court denied a plaintiff who was seeking citizenship through jus sanguinis; Attorney general's decision in 1873 that jurisdiction" means absolute and complete jurisdiction"; papers of James Madison, 22 May 1789 179-82; Congressional record 6-14-1967 by Pinckney G McElwee on ineligibility of George Romney because he was born abroad in Mexico and most importantly the decision in City of Boerne v. Flores 501 U.S.507 (1997) that makes sections of 8 U.S. Code 1401, paragraphs c,d,e,g and h as well as the Immigration Act of 1940, paragraphs c, d, e, g, h; Sec 203.b; Sec. 204 a, b, c where the Court admonished Congress with the holding; "It holds the sole power to define the substantive rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment - a definition to which Congress may not add and from which it may not subtract.

Lastly, no child born abroad at any facility including U.S. military installations, embassies or consulates are "citizens by birth" most with two American parents which also eliminated jus sanguinis. Reference: U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs, 7 FAM 1113 Not included in the meaning of "in the United States" @C. "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United states within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the Unites states and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth".

There is some confusion about the Naturalization Act of 1790 which appears to employ jus sanguinis; however, the act is solely for naturalized individuals and their children. In Osborn, Chief Justice Marshall said "The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization AND THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER EXHAUSTS IT, SO FAR AS REGARDS THE INDIVIDUAL. Thus the Act of March 26, 1790 would be unconstitutional if it attempted to enlarge the rights of a naturalized citizen to be equal of those of natural-born citizens under the constitution.

Clarence Hall, Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Challjr (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to add material to this article if it is supported by reliable sources, is free of original research, and reflects a neutral point of view giving appropriate coverage to all mainstream views on the subject. The material you cited above appears to be a mish-mash of commentaries and court rulings from all over the map, many taken out of context or without regard to their real significance. For example, United States v. Perkins, 177 F.Supp. 177 (D.D.C. 1936) was a federal district court ruling with no precedential value whatsoever; and City of Boerne v. Flores, 501 U.S. 507 (1997), dealt with the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and had nothing at all to do with citizenship law. This sort of grab-bag of proof-texting snippets might possibly be of use for a legal brief, but it is definitely not usable as a reliable source of knowledge or interpretation of the law. Further, even if you do find well-formed, high-quality material questioning the accepted mainstream interpretation of jus sanguinis in US citizenship law, you would still need to incorporate this material into the article in such a way as to let the reader know that there is a genuine difference of opinion between various experts, and without causing the article to declare authoritatively that one side or the other is "the correct" view. Even if you are personally convinced that the accepted interpretation of this issue is completely wrong, you need to respect the sources and acknowledge that there are in fact solidly reliable sources which say that jus sanguinis is in fact part of the law of the land. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Addition of this original research will not stand. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Public Opinion running 2:1 Against Current U.S. Birthplace Citizenship Policy is Relevant to Topic

To head off an ongoing edit war, I'm starting a talk discussion. When I read the article, my impression was that the dimension of public opinion opposing the current policy was not adequately covered.

The challenge is to take a highly polemic issue (whether to keep or change the current policy?), one on which the partisans hold many divergent assumptions, and try to apply the Wikipedia Policy for authoring on controversial topics.

Here are the questions we need to solve: 1. Should the Summary indicate that the voter majority is opposed to the current Birthplace Citizenship policy? (And, is the 2011 Rasmussen poll a credible source to document public opinion?)

FOR: in the detail sections, the lack of consensus over the meaning of the Citizen Clause's full reach is a recurring theme. The current policy splits a visiting family into divergent immigration statuses with the birth of a baby, complicating administration of deportation rules. The public, by a 2:1 majority seeks to fix this broken aspect of the current system. AGAINST:

2. Should the verbatim language lifted from the Citizenship Clause appear with competing interpretive contexts? FOR: If the interpretive alternatives are cited, readers will be able, while reading the text of the Citizenship Clause, to straddle the ambiguity that has developed with 150 years: The context of the 1868 ratifiers:

- The purpose of the Amendment was to confer full citizenship and eaqual legal rights on the recently emancipated slaves 

The context of the modern immigration rights movement:

- The purpose at the time doesn't matter; only the language, and its modern official interpretation

AGAINST: Pbierre (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This is an article about a legal matter deriving from the US Constitution, something that is not up for a vote or popularity contest. Citing polls in articles is iffy to begin with and has to be done with great care to make sure the results are representative, relevant to the article, and not outliers or ephemeral things. This particular poll seems to have used biased wording, and is not fairly represented by the proposed text. However, polls just aren't germane to most subjects under the sun. If we added a poll in the lede to every legal institution and principle, we would be poll-o-pedia, it simply doesn't serve a purpose to educate readers about the subject. Newspapers and polling organizations love to run these and other unencyclopedic material, like man-in-the-street interviews, quips by celebrities, trivia, and so on, but we're not a newspaper. The popularity and any debate or challenge over birthright citizenship over time (not just at present), and possibly some other stuff from the lede, belongs in a carefully structured section in the body, not the lede, and at most the lede would contain, if warranted, a statement that the issue has drawn political opposition in connection with US immigration policy, or something like that. If there is a movement to change the Constitution, that would belong in a separate article. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

RESOLUTION: The suggestion to make quick mention of the public opposition to the current Bithplace Citizenship policy in the lede, and move the discussion of public opinion to a detailed section, is accepted. This satisfies the criticism that the lede not try to mask public controversy surrounding the policy.

As far as the contextual interpretations of the Citizenship Clause, these also are going to be moved into the detailed sections, with just a few lede words remaining that "the reach of the Citiz. Clause has undergone change over time, and the current official interpretation represents the widest reach" or something to that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbierre (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Pbierre, please keep in mind that "consensus" does not mean other editors need to convince you that their suggestions are "acceptable". Nor does it mean that if others are unable to sway you, then you may conclude that your position has won support by consensus. Indeed, given the way this dispute has gone up till now, your best approach is probably to wait for as many other editors as possible to involve themselves in this discussion and see where it leads. And if a true consensus does emerge — whether it agrees with your position or not — you should probably let someone else make the appropriate changes to the article to reflect that consensus, in order to avoid any possibility that people may think you are simply continuing the edit-warring activity that has landed you in trouble up till now. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Good article with a lot of information,but I would like to see the current U.S. presidents views on Birthright citizenship since in the title it does say "in the United States".--Jose2495 (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the article is perfectly fine. It gets across information perfectly fine and is supported with good citations. I would have to agree though with the comment from Jose2495 however regarding our current president's views and propositions to changing birthright citizenship. Pupperitto (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Modern Dispute

Overall, this is an exemplary wiki page that is abundant with accurate information. It is well written and offers enough content to inform readers on multiple topics regarding birthright citizenship.

I did notice that nothing has been added under Modern Dispute for some time. Most sources under that category are from 2012, the most recent being 2015. It would be nice to see something new on there from the last couple of years to keep it fresh and contemporary.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Birthright citizenship in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725053710/http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Confusing series of edits

In this series of edits User:Aguyintobooks added a {{Broaden}} template with the edit summary "Can somebody please include the information from 'Natural-born American' prior to it being blanked and made a redirect." 'Natural-born American' is now a redirect to this page.

Since 'Natural-born American' was unsourced and appeared to be based on one editor's personal opinions, it was appropriate that User:WereSpielChequers speedily turned the article into a redirect. Since there was nothing of value to bring in to this article, I consider Aguyintobooks' edit summary unfounded and thus have undone the associated series of edits.

If there is an actual need to broaden this article, please describe in what direction it should be broadened. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jc3s5h. I did the redirect here because the two appear to me to be different names for the same thing. The edit history of the redirect is available, but there was no sourced information there, literally nothing to merge in. ϢereSpielChequers 23:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The article Natural-born-citizen clause discusses the fact that "The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase 'natural born Citizen'", and since no one alive now was a resident of the U.S. at the time the Constitution was adopted, one must be a "natural-born-citizen" to become president of the U.S. Whether the phrase "natural-born citizen" in that context as having a birthright to citizenship is a topic of ongoing debate (not just in Wikipedia, but in the country). Jc3s5h (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

put simply, the article defined the legal definition of the term 'natural-born american' which as a definition was of encyclopedic value. this article does not deal with the legal term itself, only the issue of citizenship at birth. it would be a source of pointless controversy to include the above mentioned clause regarding presidents, especially as it has its own page. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Undocumented vs. Unauthorized vs. Illegal as a descriptor of some immigrants

I'll thank The Four Deuces for this change to an edit of mine, and note that the WSJ supporting source cited right after the sentence I edited there uses the term illegal immigrants in describing a PEW study cited at the end of the paragraph, and that PEW uses the term unauthorized immigrants.

This is part of a recent series of edits impacting this sentence and a later sentence which still uses terminology saying "native-born offspring of illegal aliens".

IMO, unauthorized is a more general and neutral term than either illegal or undocumented, regardless of what terminology individual cited sources use. Perhaps this article could/should standardize on this more general/neutral terminology unless more specific/POV terminology is clearly needed. Such standardization might be introduced and explained in an existing early lead paragraph which begins, "The aspect of birthright citizenship [...] is regarded as controversial". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

In my view, being a immigrant, especially in the period shortly after arrival in the country in question, is a state of mind. Does the person plan to stay permanently, or not? Scholars who summarize relevant statistics are not likely to be in a position to know the state of mind of the people in question, especially if amalgamating different data sources. Polls could ask the persons being questioned whether they intend to stay or not, but unless the poll questions are quoted exactly as they were presented to the persons being questioned, one can't know if a poll was measuring the intent of those being questioned.

I favor the term "unauthorized alien". It avoids the question of whether the person intends to immigrate or not; for many purposes in connection with the topics where the phrase would be used, it is irrelevant whether the person intends to immigrate, or just to visit. "Unauthorized" avoids an implication of criminality; in many cases unauthorized presence is not a crime, but rather a violation that is only subject to some or all of (a) monetary forfeiture, (b) removal from the US, (c) ineligibility for visa-waiver travel to the US, or (d) ineligibility for admission, either permanently or for a period of years. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Just follow the cites - don't make up a logic here, just go with the actual wording of the author. Partisan sources intentionally script 'illegal' or 'undocumented'. (Technically I believe 'unauthorized' would not be used, it would be 'undocumented' until a legal determination might change it to to 'unlawfully present'. A bit of a mashup in practice.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Usually we use the term used in reliable sources, which is "undocumented." AP for example put this into their style guide in 2013.[1] If we use the term "illegal" because it is in the original source, then we should put it in quotes. There is no policy that says we should use the exact wording that appears in sources, we only have to reflect the exact meaning. Many reliable sources are biased and use the jargon of their particular point of view, but are not recommended per WP:LABEL. BTW if one wants to make a general rule for articles about the recommended terminology, then it should be taken to the village pump. TFD (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces No, LABEL says to use in-text attribution value-laden labels, not enquote. And both "illegal" and "undocumented" are POV terms, which brings up another point. To enquote selectively without context would be adding an OR and WP:POV narrative unless the use of "undocumented" or "illegal" or "unlawful" or "whatever" are ALL handled equally by some guiding principle such as quoting ALL of them, then the quoted phrases are simply biased statements. One may quote an entire line of note from a person, but otherwise quoting would seem to be WP:SCAREQUOTES. It also risks misusing a technically correct term and definitely disregarding the source judgement without knowing the context they applied. It's a bit conflicted to lean on a cite as an RS authority and simultaneously reject their knowledge and authority. I think that if the cite is AP who uses the word "undocumented", then the article should say undocumented without quotes. If the cite is to department of justice who uses the word "illegal", then the article should say illegal without quotes. Literally I suppose "undocumented" refers only to those who came in illegally and have not been detained or otherwise have records in DOJ files, and "Unlawful" refers to someone who has a determination made that either came in and overstayed their visa or who has been detained and adjudicated. But usage is muddy. The conclusion is -- don't try and come up with a magic solution, Just follow the cites. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

While you may be correct that the term "undocumented" is value laden, the reality is that it is not considered as such by reliable sources, while "illegal" usually is. NPOV does not mean we avoid terms recommended by maintream media. TFD (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

If a person doesn't obey the law, calling them "illegal" is fair. Terms like "unauthorized" or "undocumented" are intended to seem milder and gentler -- to portray illegal aliens as morally entitled to disobey America's laws. If any of us were to enter Mexico illegally and demand our "rights" there, we would be tossed in jail and properly so. There is no inherent right for people to break and disregard American laws, then get new shoes, new jeans, a cell phone, a debit card, and the other benefits now handed out to illegal aliens. It is far healthier for a person new to America to obey its laws and try to assimilate into American culture (E Pluribus Unum). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Just commenting in passing to mention Jennifer Merolla; S. Karthick; Ramakrishnan Haynes; Chris Haynes. ""Illegal," 'Undocumented,' or 'Unauthorized': Equivalency Frames, Issue Frames, and Public Opinion on Immigration". Perspectives on Politics. 11 (3 (September 2013)). Published by: American Political Science Association: 789–807 – via jstor.

Abstract

Immigration has been a salient and contentious topic in the United States, with a great deal of congressional debate, advocacy efforts, and media coverage. Among conservative and liberal groups, there is a vigorous debate over the terms used to describe this population, such as "undocumented" or "illegal," as both sides perceive significant consequences to public opinion that flow out of this choice in equivalency frames. These same groups also compete over the ways in which immigration policies are framed. Here, for the first time, we examine the use of both types of frames (of immigrants themselves, and the policies affecting them) in media coverage. Importantly, we also test for whether these various frames affect preferences on three different policies of legalization. Our results suggest that efforts to focus on the terms used to describe immigrants have limited effect, and that efforts to frame policy offer greater promise in swaying public opinion on immigration.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This may not be much use, but I am commenting here to present a non-American reading of the contentious terms. I would take "illegal immigration" to have a right-wing political valence, and "undocumented migrant" to have a left-wing political valence.

The term I would expect to see used in neutral sources is "irregular migration", which encompasses all forms of unauthorised migration, and carries no implication of criminality. Foxmilder (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Table 2 on page 794 of the source I mentioned above is interesting. The totals it shows are:

Variations in use of illegal, undocumented, and unauthorized, 2007-2011

	Total
As proportion of 13,918 stories on immigration
Illegal	41%
Undocumented	1%
Unauthorized	0.2%
As proportion of 5,851 stories focusing on those without legal status
Illegal	96.4%
Undocumented	3.2%
Unauthorized	0.4%

These are totals for five news outlets: Washington Post, Washington Times, NY Post, NY Times, CNN, FOX, MSNBC. I've not shown the per-outlet figures above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

POV, update....

It strikes me that the article should be checked for NPOV, and also updated as the issue is back in the headlines of late.

In particular, the intro states that: "The application of birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants remains controversial among right-wing politicians."

The wording there is problematic for a couple of reasons:

1. It's not just politicians that it's controversial among, but a significant percentage of the American people, so suggesting that it's just an issue for politicians is misleading.

2. The use of the label "right-wing" is somewhat POV. Most who are critical of birthright citizenship for the children illegal migrants and tourists would probably describe themselves as "conservative," but certainly others would describe themselves as "moderate," "independent," or even "liberal" or "progressive."

Labeling criticism of universal jus soli citizenship as "right wing" seems to suggest that it's somehow a far-right position, but actually countries like New Zealand and Sweden (hardly right-wing bastions!) don't grant it either.

I would suggest a more direct and neutral wording - perhaps something along the lines of "among those wanting more restrictive immigration policies."

Beyond that, I think the article needs to have a bit more nuance with regards to what it asserts regarding the 14th Amendment and universal jus soli...

I think it would be reasonable for the article to assert that the widely accepted view is that the 14th Amendment provides for universal jus soli citizenship, and that this has been official US government policy for many decades now. But I think Wikipedia should stop short of officially asserting as fact that the 14th Amendment does in fact do that, since this would go against NPOV, and there's an ongoing dispute as to how exactly the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment should be interpreted.

The Supreme Court has actually not yet directly ruled on whether the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants or of those visiting the United States with tourist visas. And of the Supreme Court cases discussed in this very article, some of the rulings actually suggest a more restrictive interpretation of "under the jurisdiction of." -2003:CA:83D0:7F00:8D9C:3331:761F:6CF7 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The reality is that the campaign to end birthright citizenship for undocumented works comes from the U.S. Right and has no support among mainstream legal experts. What positions are left or right or reasonable or otherwise differs among countries and time periods. TFD (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

There really is not any ambiguity as far as what the 14th Amendment meant. It simply placed into the constitution, and generalized to all people, what had been previous British law and hence U.S. post-colonial law: that white people born on U.S. soil were automatically U.S. citizens.

All of the legal books that say this are now public domain, anyone can go read them. Also, in this article itself are quotes from the Congressional Globe of the discussions over the 14th Amendment, and you can see them making objections like “But what about Chinamen!” and “But what about gypsies, they infest society!” and clearly deciding that the 14th amendment would apply to all people. See also the passage in the current version of the article,

In 2006 judge James Chiun-Yue Ho, who President Donald Trump would later appoint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, wrote in a law review article that with the Plyler decision "any doubt was put to rest" whether the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision applied to illegal aliens given that "[in Plyler] all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike. And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens."

And note that, for example, for purposes of treason, even someone simply visiting the U.S. is construed to hold temporary allegiance to the U.S., beyond simply being under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, and consequently can be legally regarded as having betrayed the United States if their entire connection to the country is that they arrived at JFK airport a few hours ago and ate a giant cinnamon bun before committing treason. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

The wording the original poster was describing as POV has since been changed, and the intro seems more neutral now. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to all people born in the U.S.; it excludes Native American tribes and diplomats. I clarified that in the intro. I also clarified the distinction requested above while avoiding giving an opinion in Wikipedia's voice - while some people claim the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to illegal immigrants, this has never been endorsed by the courts. -- Beland (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

“Illegal Aliens”

I’m doing a little cleanup here and noticed the proliferation of the term “illegal aliens.” Since this is a highly politicized term (sure all immigration-related terms can have some political valence, but “illegal aliens” is as far on that specific side of the political discourse as one can reasonably go), I’m just checking the appended cites for each usage and modifying as needed.

This is an NPOV-related issue, although I’m not sure that use of “illegal aliens” is actually a strict NPOV violation, so I’m not claiming that. Since almost none of our cites actually use the term “illegal alien” in their own voice, I’m modifying most of the usages in our article. I expect this to be uncontentious with regular editors, but if I modify a usage incorrectly or miss a modification, feel free to change it appropriately or to holler at me to discuss further. ThanksForHelping (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

See #Undocumented vs. Unauthorized vs. Illegal as a descriptor of some immigrants. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, damn; thank you! I searched Talk and got all turned around because of the “anchor baby” brouhaha. Appreciate it. ThanksForHelping (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

In addition, the terminology in this article should not usually change from one sentence to another just because a citation associated with that sentence used certain terminology. The exception would be if the sentence was about what terminology a certain source uses.

I went through and removed uses of "illegal alien" that were not direct quotations. It is inappropriate language to use in 2024. I did use different terminology to fit some material that was cited, in part because there is nuance to different terms and context can matter, particularly in the law. If someone has an issue with this, ping me at my talk. Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Race, Law, and Politics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Olsen8 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by PurdueGrad29 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)