Talk:Alien and Sedition Acts/Archive 2

Used against Federalists?
Whom in particular? That is just one source that is mentioned for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.57.80 (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a place to promote a 21st century advocate of nullification
I removed a section talking about a 21st century advocate of nullification. It is appropriate to discuss Jefferson's attempts at nullification and possibly secession as a response to Alien and Sedition Acts. Garfield's comments more than 60 years later are about Jefferson and nullification. The deleted remarks refer to a modern political outlier advocating nullification today based on an unusual interpretation of the 10th Amendment, and are not primarily historical commentary about Jefferson's response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Waltezell (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Twenty-five people were hanged"
This sentence precedes a list of names of people who were fined and/or imprisoned. There is no citation for this claim and it would seem to be a typo -- perhaps it was supposed to say "28 people were convicted."

71.126.235.108 (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Michael Kerpan

Links in the Introduction
There is no link to some of Wikipedia's other pages in the introduction, specifically the Naturalization Act of 1798 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1798). Also there aren't even pages for the other three acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.223.20 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Article completely omits any kind of definitional statement
This is the worst Wiki article that I have ever seen notwithstanding the fact that it offers a lot of competently presented information related to the subject. What it does not do is make any kind of clear statement as to what the acts actually were, what they forbid or what they say. It is as though the critical first paragraph is missing. We launch immediately into why they were enacted, the context, some effects, etc. All very fine. But what were they? 98.69.160.197 (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is still very true. Is anyone working on this?Mysticete (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. Holy cow, this article is terrible, never identifying what the acts actually were. Can anyone help? 98.244.55.218 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I came here to ask about the same thing, I'm just amazed that there's no clear explanation. Joe Suggs (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC) http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/601714 says the Sedition Act expired March 3, 1801, not in 1800 as this article states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.197.28 (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Addition of full text to address concerns above
I recently added the full text of all acts to address the concerns of a lack of definition. Shall I add a wikified summary somewhere else, and is the formatting ok? It seems somewhat tldr to include the whole thing, is there a procedure for this? Americanbarbarian (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Effects of the Acts
The effects of the Acts should probably include the internment of Japanese Americans (Issei only = first generation) who were resident aliens (Not allowed to apply for citizenship) and therefore validly declared "enemy aliens" by the US government. (For the record, internment of the second generation (Nissei), Japanese Americans and citizens, everyone recognizes now as totally illegal.) Student7 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This article should say how many Americans were fined and/or imprisoned under the act; and since it mentions some under both Adams and Jefferson, numbers for each. Craig234 (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Craig234

"though Jefferson also used the acts to prosecute several of his own critics before the acts expired."
Could someone with the books that are referenced for this line check the accuracy of this claim? I can't find any online source that says something similar. I think it should be removed if the owners of the books can't confirm it. My understanding is that the Alien and Sedition Acts expired as Jefferson entered office. Kringe1 (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I checked my copy of Chernow's biography of Hamilton and I think this description (brought up twice in the article, no less) is based on an elementary error. The cited page 668 of Chernow discusses the famous People v. Croswell libel case, but that case involved the alleged violation of New York's libel laws, not any federal laws (which, as you note, ceased to exist after Jefferson's inauguration). Furthermore, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment there was nothing unconstitutional about such laws, as the First Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights was a check on the powers of the federal government, not the states. This is highly relevant because it undercuts the unstated implication that Jefferson was hypocritical for opposing the Sedition Act, while supporting prosecutions for seditious libel of those opposed to him. The Sedition Act was baldy unconstitutional, while the state laws were not.

As an earlier comment discussed in greater detail this article strikes a revisionist/anti-Jefferson tone through both the inclusion of this "fact" and the lengthy polemic conclusion centering on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Though of immense importance in their own right, the resolutions shouldn't be taking up the entire conclusion of an article on the Alien and Sedition Acts. Further revisions would be welcome.

Weygander (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Should Trump content from body be in the lead?
Under WP:MOS/lead, the lead should summarize the article body. I accidentally put this sentence - "Roosevelt's proclamations were cited by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as good precedents for his controversial position that Muslims should be banned from entering the United States for an unspecified period, as part of the undeclared war on terror" in the lead first paragraph, and in a later edit, I put it where it chronologically follows in the lead fourth paragraph. Both occurrences were deleted, with the edit summary "Trump is already mentioned in the 21st century section. There is no need for 3 references to him". I agree that there should not be three references to Mr. Trump's use of these acts, and I agree that this content does not belong in the lead first paragraph, but it should be in the lead as per WP:MOS. So I added it back to the end of the fourth paragraph in the lead... and I could not resist making silly pun in the title of this talk page section. :) MBUSHIstory (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is about an historical event from the late 18th Century. It is hard to justify that even a brief discussion of a widely criticized political position (only indirectly relayed to the article subject -- Trump referenced FDR not the actual Alien and Sedition Act) taken by a primary candidate in the GOP primary process in 2015 warrants inclusion in the article lead.  Maybe once he's elected and actually implements this policy this will warrant further coverage.  I'm not even sure at this point that it warrants coverage in the body of the article -- it should probably also be removed from there unless someone beyond MBUSH supports retaining it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with North Shoreman (except for the "once he's elected" part; I hope that's intended to be counterfactual) . It's just not a significant aspect of the actual topic of this article.  Could possibly be mentioned at Donald Trump, with a link from that article to this one, but given that he didn't mention the act by name, probably not even there. --Trovatore (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I now agree with User:North Shoreman and User:Trovatore that the Trump info does not belong in the lead, by WP:UNDUE. MBUSHIstory (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Alien Enemies Act and the McCarran-Walter Act
The Immigration Act of 1917 article says, "The McCarran-Walter Act revised all previous laws and regulations regarding immigration, naturalization, and nationality, and collected into one comprehensive statute." How did the McCarren Act revise the Alien Enemies Act? MBUSHIstory (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Did President Carter use Alien Enemies Act when he deported Iranians?
Was the AEA the authority President Carter used in re deportation of Iranian students in 1979, and generally in 1980? MBUSHIstory (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

History section

 * The first sentence has no source, and it is difficult to understand what it is saying.


 * The second sentence is not supported by the cited source.


 * The source for the third, fourth, and fifth sentences (page 48 of Stephen Knott's Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth), does not appear to support the edits. The cited page appears to be about Garfield, and is not related to the topics in our article. (There may be two different editions, one with 348 pages, the other with 336 pages, possibly for a hardcover and paperback edition.) The online content I have been able to access by plugging words from our article into a google search of the book produces the first line of the page being "writings in 1861. By the end of the war Garfield was claiming that 'the fame...", then content including "...United States, I am a Hamilton Federalist.”3 During the Civil War era, Hamilton’s reputation among the Ivy League-educated elite of New England soared to unparalleled heights.4 To them, the tragic events associated with the disintegration of the Union only affirmed his... ", and saying "Of Jefferson is waning, and the fame of Hamilton is waxing, in the estimation of the American people' and that the United States was 'gravitating towards a stronger government.' Garfield spent two weeks before delivering a Fourth of July oration in 1861 revisiting history books on the Constitution". Could the editor who added these sources please quote the content on that page that supports the three sentences in our article?


 * The sixth sentence does not have a source. MBUSHIstory (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The last section on Trump has few and questionable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.69.171.36 (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Copy editing
I've added a copy editing tag, due to poor style throughout, and some confusing grammar. Meesher (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"Alien Enemy Act" or "Alien Enemies Act"?
In the lede I see both the forms "Alien Enemy act" and "Alien Enemies Act". I assume that both refer to the same Act. But everywhere else in the article the Act is only called the "Alien Enemies Act". Are both forms correct or should it be changed to "Alien Enemies Act" everywhere? Spike (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)