Talk:Americans/Archive 5

New Heading for section for "White and European Americans"
Some North Asians (e.g. some Russians) may fit well under the "White and European Americans" heading, but Central Asians (Kazakhstanis, Uzbekistanis, etc.) as well as Southwest Asians (Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious groups like Jews, Druze, Kurds, Arabs, etc.) neither historically nor fully represent the terms "White" or "European." Relatively recent (within the past 100 years) horrific events affecting both public opinion and legislation in Europe and the United States such as the Holocaust or anti-Syrian/Muslim protests seem to prove that those of Middle Eastern descent are neither "white" nor "European." In many cases, even if these Middle Eastern populations "believe" they are "European" or "white," they continue to face persecution for their "non-whiteness."

Also, no Middle-Eastern American groups are included in the "White and European" ethnic ancestry chart—should Middle-Eastern American groups have their own section in general? This page does not have to directly reflect the census—it can reflect the various ethnic groups of the Americas in a more accurate, but still simple and clear, way.

What do you think? I suggest at the very least changing the heading to "White, European, and Middle Eastern Americans." Thank you. Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think a) there's a good likelihood that you are of Middle Eastern extraction, and b) just "White" with an introductory sentence reprising the current census definition which would have addressed your issue would have been best. As it is looks like somebody's pushing something, sticks out as verbose at the same time as it misses North Africans. Also "Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity" would work better than the colon. Lycurgus (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. I created a new, cited section for "Middle Eastern and North African Americans." Jeffgr9 (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Most Jews in the U.S. would be considered white/European. TFD (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Jewish adherents, like Muslim and Christian adherents, are tabulated as followers of a religion rather than as an ethnic group. Soupforone (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jews are an Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group that signify both hereditary lineage and spiritual practice as major factors in their Jewish identity. As cited previously, and here: http://forward.com/culture/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/ most Jews are more related to each other than to any other group and many feel more comfortable identifying as Jews more than anything else. Jeffgr9 (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * European Jews are also considered an ethnicity with their own language, "Yiddish." Many of them, particularly socialists, were not even religious.  TFD (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yiddish is a Creole language of Hebrew as Jews began interacting with German, Polish, Russian, and other Eastern European languages. And Jews do not have to be religious to be Jews. Even when conquerors--such as the Greeks, Romans, and Spanish--repressed Jews from practicing Judaism or speaking Hebrew, these people remained Jews, because they are both an ethnic group and adherents to a philosophical/spiritual practice. Jeffgr9 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, but note that the MENA category isn't under review - it's a new official designation and didn't exist before. The genetic stuff is also off-topic and uncertain . That pointed out, not all Jews came straight from the Levant; many really are European (Ashkenazi & Sephardic). Anyway, the census bureau doesn't tabulate religions as ethnic groups. Soupforone (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jews are an Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group and a Tribe, whose roots originate in the Western Levant (Canaan/the Land of Israel). Judaism is the philosophical/moral system that Jews first created in the Middle East.  One of the customs that Jews employ dictates that when people join the Tribe, or "converted," they adopt ethnocultural customs deriving from the Middle East, and are furthermore considered ethnically Jewish/Hebrew/Israelite.


 * During their various Diasporas, some Jews adapted their language, culture, political and philosophical beliefs to the surrounding hostlands, and also acquired new genetic admixture from the surrounding groups that changed some of their physical characteristics, but ultimately maintained their main, Middle Eastern, genetic make-up.  For this reasons, Jews faced persecution all over Europe throughout the millennia because they were perceived as Middle Eastern or Oriental and not European/"white." I have even already cited a source that presents a bill passed by US Congress in 1910 describing "Armenians, Assyrians, and Jews" as Asiatic—for which they meant Middle Eastern.


 * Jews are Levantine—and therefore MENA. Druze, like Jews, are an Ethnocultural group—both an ethnicity and a cultural/religious group—and are also MENA. Jeffgr9 (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, as indicated in the articles and sources regarding George Shishim, MENA Americans had previously rallied together first to claim their identity as "white," but then in 1987, MENA Americans rallied to either change their classification to non-white, or to permit MENA Americans (i.e. Jews and Arabs) and other ethnic groups classified as "white" to claim discrimination by white people, even if the government still classified MENA Americans (and the like) as "white." Jeffgr9 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I get it, but please note that the 9/11 passage on attacks on Jews is original research. The link only indicates that in 2012, prompted in part by post-9/11 discrimination against Arab Americans, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee petitioned the Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency to designate the MENA populations as a minority/disadvantaged community . This is already explained further down in the text. With regard to religious adherents, the census bureau describes them as just that rather than as ethnoreligious groups. It also counts Muslims and Christians among the religious adherents. Soupforone (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, it looks like the article I was using for the first sentence connecting Jewish persecution with Arab persecution was further down in that paragraph:
 * "In its two decisions today, the Court upheld the rights of an Iraqi-American associate professor to use the law in a suit asserting that he was denied tenure because of his Arab origins and of a Jewish congregation to use it in a damage suit against eight men accused of spray-painting its synagogue with large Nazi and anti-Semitic symbols and slogans." (Taylor, Stuart Jr. 1987).
 * For the Sikhs and Jews line regarding MENA/South Asian racial statuses—please refer to information on the term "Ethnoreligious group." The term is integral to Jews, Druze, Kurds, and Sikhs. Genetic/ethnic heritage is very much a part of Jewish identity, and many Jews do not practice Judaism.  This distinction does not pertain to Christians, and only pertains to some Muslims—in this case, however, those Muslims would most likely opt for MENA status (i.e. descendants of Ali, Muhammad's cousin) which they would most likely already have under these new definitions by the census.  Until Jews (and/or Sikhs, who might want to identify as "South Asian") are either accepted under the MENA designation, or have their own designation as "Jews" in the census, they must be identified as an Ethnoreligious (or Ethnocultural) group and not solely a religion. Thank you for your understanding in this process.  I appreciate your work. Jeffgr9 (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeffgr9, Yiddish is not a creole of Hebrew, it is a version of German with Hebrew terms retained for religious topics and its dialects added terms from local languages, such as Polish words for Polish Yiddish speakers. Few if any European Jews spoke Hebrew when they arrived, they spoke Aramaic or Greek. And genetics are irrelevant. Certainly there are Americans who did not consider them white, and they thought the same about Eastern and Southern Europeans. Italians for example were called "guineas." TFD (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeffgr9, I understand but the passage is synthesis, citekill and redundant:
 * "Even with continuing racist, white supremacist and "radical Arab and Muslim" (Foxman 2003) attacks on and conspiracy theories about Jews,[140][141][142] and increasing racist suspicions of and attacks against Arabs and Arab Muslims following September 11, 2001,[143] the United States Census Bureau still considered all MENA Americans as "white,"[144] and only counted Jews as members of a religion.[145] Many members of these groups, from Jews, to North Africans, to Arab Americans, do not consider themselves "white."[146][147][148]"

Please note that the spray-painting of the Jewish synagogue in 1987 had nothing to do with the census bureau's ethnic classification, nor does the 144 census brief claim it did. As pointed out, what actually prompted the bureau to establish the new MENA entry was a petition by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee addressed to the Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency; it sought to designate the MENA populations as a minority/disadvantaged community. The assertion that Jewish, North African and Arab Americans do not consider themselves "white" is also already implied by the phrase that "the expert groups, including some Jewish organizations, felt that the earlier "white" designation no longer accurately represents MENA identity, so they successfully lobbied for a distinct categorization." Lastly, I get what you mean about ethnoreligious groups, but please stop singling out Jewish and Sikh adherents. The census bureau explains that it doesn't tabulate any faiths as ethnic groups but instead as religions, including Muslim and Christian denominations ("the Census Bureau does not currently tabulate on religious responses to the race or ethnic questions (e.g., Sikh, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Lutheran, etc." ). That Jews are an ethnoreligious group is also already indicated further down ("Jews are an ethnoreligious group with culture and ethnicity intertwined"). Soupforone (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Soupforone (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC), Your statement, "This process does not pertain to Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Sikh and other religious adherents, whom the bureau tabulates as followers of a religion rather than members of an ethnic group." as it stands, is false: The people who believe in Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Sikhism are surely included in the census, but through the category of each of their currently recognized ethnicities. However, the term Ethnoreligious, or Ethnocultural, means that a group signifies both its ethnic background and its cultural practice as essential to the group's identity.  Thus, the only two groups on that list whose ethnocultural statuses are not yet/currently tabulated as ethnic groups are only the Sikhs and the Jews, not Muslims or Christians. The statement I included: As for the most recent legal definitions of race regarding MENA Americans, the United States Census Bureau is presently finalizing the ethnic classification of MENA populations. This process does not "currently" include Ethnoreligious groups such as Sikhs or Jews, as the Bureau only tabulates these groups as followers of religions rather than members of ethnic groups" addresses this difference, and does not state that people who follow a religious belief are not counted on the census.  You have already agreed that Jews are MENA, even despite the Census' definitions.  The problem, therefore, is not whether Jews or Sikhs (or Druze, for that matter) should be included/recognized because they are religious, but rather because they are ethnocultural groups that practice customs specific to their ethnicities.


 * Your previous statement claiming "including some Jewish organizations" has nothing to do with what the cited passage states. The problem here in relation to the categorization of the ethnicity of Jews very much relates to how Jews feel about being labeled.  Many Jews, as noted in the citation, do not want to be labeled as they were in Europe, because being labeled as Jews (i.e. Semitic/Middle Eastern) meant probable death; but, at the same time, they do not feel they should be labeled "white" or any of the European ethnic groups because all of those groups persecuted them for being ethnic Jews.


 * Speaking of which, the anecdote relating to the swastikas spray-painted on the Jewish synagogues effectively does relate to ethnic identification of Jews, because white supremacists and Nazis believe Jews to be non-white—specifically Jews/Semitic (hence the term, Antisemitism. The statement shows how even though Jews do not consider themselves "white," white groups specifically do not consider Jews "white," and historically and genetically Jews are Middle Eastern/Semitic, the Census Bureau has declined to identify Jews as an ethnic group, but solely a religious group. Thank you. Jeffgr9 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand. It was just that the phrasing implied that, despite the spray-painting of the synagogue and conspiracy theories against Jews, the census bureau tabulates Jews as an ethnoreligious population when it actually doesn't. You're right, though, that Jews are an ethnoreligious group and have Semitic historical and genetic roots; so the assertion that Jews and Sikhs are not currently tabulated as ethnic groups makes sense I guess. Also, please note that Jewish groups were among the leaders and experts from the Arab American Institute, the Arab American Studies Association, and other leading Middle Eastern and Arab American scholars, activists, and organizations that the bureau met with over the new MENA designation ( - page 24). Soupforone (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your conversation and consensus. I have edited the MENA American "feelings" paragraph so that it provides a transition between time periods but also falls in line with what you were saying above—i.e. it dates the feelings of MENA Americans before and after 2010 about the mainstream considering them "white." Thank you again and I hope you are well!! :)  Jeffgr9 (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

TFD (talk), and yes, Yiddish is by definition a creole. Jews who spoke/wrote in Hebrew or Hebrew dialects Aramaic migrated/were brought as slaves to Eastern Europe/Russia, where they creolized their native language to adapt to the dominant languages.

From the Yiddish Institute of Jewish Research, here are quotes describing co-parenting of Afro-Asiatic, Semitic languages Hebrew and Aramaic to Yiddish:


 * The language is characterized by a synthesis of Germanic (the majority component, derived from medieval German city dialects, themselves recombined) with Hebrew and Aramaic. (pg. 1).


 * From the 1970s on, some linguists, using evidence from both Germanic and Semitic components, began opting for a more easterly Danube-region origin, around Jewish centers in Regensburg, Nuremberg, and Rothenburg. (pg. 2).


 * By all accounts, Yiddish was from very early on the universal spoken language of Jews in the Germanic-speaking territory known as Ashkenaz in Jewish culture. It was one of the major new European Jewish cultures that arose in medieval Europe. The others include Sepharad (Seforad) on the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal); Tsarfat (Tsorfas) on French soil; Kenaan (Knaan) in the Slavic lands; Loe(y)z in Italy; Yavan (Yovon) in Greece; and Hagar (Hogor) in Hungary.


 * From earliest times, Yiddish was written using the same alphabet as Hebrew and Aramaic. Semitic alphabets have only consonants (many, including Hebrew and Aramaic, eventually developed systems for indicating vowels via diacritic marks). The loss of some ancient consonants in actual pronunciation “freed up” a number of letters to function in Yiddish as European-style vowel-letters, most famously ayin for e; alef for a and o sounds; and various combinations of yud and vov for diphthongs. Some of these devices were further developments of Aramaic-era usages. In Yiddish, the consonant-only Semitic script evolved into a vowel-plus-consonant European-type alphabet that provided a good (eventually, for modern standard Yiddish perfect) phonetic match between letter and sound. Words of Hebrew and Aramaic origin continued, however, to be spelled historically. They also maintain a unique sound pattern within the language; words are usually accented on the syllable before the last (the penult), rather than on the root syllable as in the Germanic parts of the language. (pg. 3).


 * Eleventh-century “glosses” (translations of “hard words” into the vernacular) are early manifestations of a written tradition that used Yiddish to explain Hebrew and Aramaic texts. The oldest known complete Yiddish sentence, dated 1272, occurs in an illuminated festival prayerbook manuscript known as the Worms Mahzor (Vórmser mákhzer); the words contain a blessing for the person who will carry the book to the synagogue. Its text is written into the hollows of a large calligraphic Hebrew word. (pg. 3-4).


 * In the east, the original Germanic and Semitic components were enriched by a Slavic component, which gave the language a new layer. (6).


 * In the early Soviet Union, Yiddish became a government-supported language and literature, and the state financed school systems, advanced research institutes, and literature. But Soviet rule, after some years of freedom in the earlier 1920s, made for a highly “straightjacketed Yiddish” with dictates on spelling (banishing the historic spelling of Semitic-origin words in the late 1920s), vocabulary, and, most importantly, content. Then, in the 1930s, Stalinist orders closed most of the extant institutions. In the purges of 1937, leading Yiddish writers and cultural leaders were arrested and executed; later, in the major postwar purge, the greatest surviving authors were murdered in 1952. (pg. 6).


 * Hasidism enhanced the status of Yiddish among the three languages of Ashkenaz. A new layer of sacred words that derived from Hebrew or Aramaic came into the everyday language, for example, dvéykes (literally, a cleaving; reinvigorated as a form of Hasidic rapture and cleavage to God); histálkes (disappearance, adapted to refer to the death of a Hasidic holy person—a tsadik or rebbe). (pg. 6-7).


 * In the aftermath of the Holocaust, the cultural affinity of most American and other Western Jews was for the emerging State of Israel and Israeli Hebrew. Moreover, Yiddish often had an image of “greenhorn” lack of sophistication and lowbrow humor; its use was associated with failure to climb on board the American socioeconomic ladder of success. Starting in the 1960s, attitudes toward Yiddish began to change, influenced by several factors including the gradual death of the last masters (and of Yiddish- speaking parents and relatives) that evoked nostalgia for the “old country”; growing consciousness (and knowledge) of the Holocaust; a recognition that Israeli Hebrew was now secure and that its proponents need not “fear” Yiddish; the changing evaluation in the United States of black and other ethnic cultures; and, a growing scholarly movement that saw a great world literature in Yiddish prose, poetry, and drama in 150 years that can schematically be dated from 1850 to 2000. (pg. 11).

Yiddish, like other creoles, features code-switching, for which Jews could understand similar Hebrew-derived words that non-Jews in Eastern-Europe could not understand—this idea is noted in Joseph Dorman's 2011 documentary, "Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness." Some people may debate this idea, but there is no definitive refutation of Yiddish and Ladino as Creole/pidgin languages, because ultimately, Yiddish shares two co-parents: Indo-Aryan—as much of the grammar and word structure—and Afroasiatic the Hebrew—in which it was originally written and from which many words were adapted—by Jews who arrived in Germany, Russia, Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe.

Again, Yiddish (and Ladino for that matter) was originally written in Hebrew, and was specifically created by Jews who adapted to the dominant languages of regions in which they arrived after various Jewish diasporas:
 * "As these Central European communities grew, local Jews developed their own unique hybrid of medieval German dialects, combining them with Hebrew and Aramaic. From this sprang Yiddish: a rugged vernacular, destined to bind millions of distinct European Jews - both secular and religious - into a common Jewish culture that would define Ashkenazi life in Eastern Europe until the Holocaust..."
 * "Likewise, Hebrew remained the sacred language of prayer and scripture and of responsa literature (rabbinic dialogues regarding law), while Yiddish was used as the everyday vernacular, assuring that Eastern Jews would continue to maintain ties to Jews in German lands, just as they would remain distinct from their non-Jewish hosts. Within the Polish settlement experience - this is noteworthy as a special case Yiddish was not abandoned for the dominant Polish. It remained a most significant and distinguishing factor of Jewish life and culture well into the 20th century." (YIVO 2004).
 * Therefore, Yiddish is a Creole language from both Hebrew (an Afro-Asiatic langauge and the various Eastern European languages (Indo-Aryan languages) that Jews encountered.

As to your second argument, genetics are absolutely relevant—they tell specific stories for Jews in their diaspora. Jews suffered various Exiles and Occupations from their homeland—from Ancient Egyptian Occupation of the Levant, to Assyrian Captivity and Exile, to Babylonian Captivity and Exile, to Greek Occupation and Exile, to the Roman Occupation and Exile. These events subjected Jews to slavery, pogroms, cultural assimilation, forced expulsions, genocide, and more, scattering Jews all around the world, known today as the Jewish diaspora. [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/69*.html Cassius Dio's Roman History: Epitome of Book LXIX para. 13-14]: "13 At first the Romans took no account of them. Soon, however, all Judaea had been stirred up, and the Jews everywhere were showing signs of disturbance, were gathering together, and giving evidence of great hostility to the Romans, partly by secret and partly by overt acts; 2 many outside nations, too, were joining them through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth, one might almost say, was being stirred up over the matter. Then, indeed, Hadrian sent against them his best generals. First of these was Julius Severus, who was dispatched from Britain, where he was governor, against the Jews. 3 Severus did not venture to attack his opponents in the open at any one point, in view of their numbers and their desperation, but by intercepting small groups, thanks to the number of his soldiers and his under-officers, and by depriving them of food and shutting them up, he was able, rather slowly, to be sure, but with comparatively little danger, to crush, exhaust and exterminate them. Very few of them in fact survived. 14 1 Fifty of their most important outposts and nine hundred and eighty-five of their most famous villages were razed to the ground. Five hundred and eighty thousand men were slain in the various raids and battles, and the number of those that perished by famine, disease and fire was past finding out. 2 Thus nearly the whole of Judaea was made desolate, a result of which the people had had forewarning before the war. For the tomb of Solomon, which the Jews regard as an object of veneration, fell to pieces of itself and collapsed, and many wolves and hyenas rushed howling into their cities. 3 Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war. Therefore Hadrian in writing to the senate did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors, 'If you and our children are in health, it is well; I and the legions are in health'" (para. 13-14). Sheffer, Gabriel. 2005. Is the Jewish Diaspora Unique? Reflections on the Diaspora's Current Situation. Israel Studies 10 (1): p. 3-4. "...the Jewish nation, which from its very earliest days believed and claimed that it was the "chosen people," and hence unique. This attitude has further been buttressed by the equally traditional view, which is held not only by the Jews themselves, about the exceptional historical age of this diaspora, its singular traumatic experiences its singular ability to survive pogroms, exiles, and Holocaust, as well as its "special relations" with its ancient homeland, culminating in 1948 with the nation-state that the Jewish nation has established there... First, like many other members of established diasporas, the vast majority of Jews no longer regard themselves as being in Galut [exile] in their host countries.7 Perceptually, as well as actually, Jews permanently reside in host countries of their own free will, as a result of inertia, or as a result of problematic conditions prevailing in other hostlands, or in Israel. It means that the basic perception of many Jews about their existential situation in their hostlands has changed. Consequently, there is both a much greater self- and collective-legitimatization to refrain from making serious plans concerning "return" or actually "making Aliyah" [to emigrate, or "go up"] to Israel. This is one of the results of their wider, yet still rather problematic and sometimes painful acceptance by the societies and political systems in their host countries. It means that they, and to an extent their hosts, do not regard Jewish life within the framework of diasporic formations in these hostlands as something that they should be ashamed of, hide from others, or alter by returning to the old homeland" (p. 4).

In addition, one of the key differences between Jews, a Middle Eastern (hence, Afro-Asiatic) ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group, and any European ethnic groups remains that Jews have never been considered true Europeans. Even those who converted or did not practice Judaism were molested, taxed, killed, or otherwise persecuted/oppressed by the dominant classes of Europe. For example, as Roman Historian, Suetonius, describes, Emperor Domitian's implementation of the Fiscus Judaicus tax:
 * Besides the exactions from others, the poll-tax on the Jews was levied with extreme rigour, both on those who lived after the manner of Jews in the city, without publicly professing themselves to be such [822], and on those who, by (490) concealing their origin, avoided paying the tribute imposed upon that people. I remember, when I was a youth, to have been present [823], when an old man, ninety years of age, had his person exposed to view in a very crowded court, in order that, on inspection, the procurator might satisfy himself whether he was circumcised. [824].

Even though these Jews did not publicly identify as Jews, they were still persecuted for being Jews. The Romans also forbade Christians to intermarry with Jews, burned down their synagogues, and prevented Jews from civil and occupational services.

Here are more laws that Rome used to separate, isolate, and persecute Jews from the rest of Europe:


 * "Eusebius of Caesarea, The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine"
 * "...it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul..."
 * "Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd..."(Chapter XVIII)
 * "...I have enumerated than in any other, but also that it is most fitting that all should unite in desiring that which sound reason appears to demand, and in avoiding all participation in the perjured conduct of the Jews." (Chapter XIX)
 * "HE also passed a law to the effect that no Christian should remain in servitude to a Jewish master, on the ground that it could not be right that those whom the Saviour had ransomed should be subjected to the yoke of slavery by a people who had slain the prophets and the Lord himself. If any were found hereafter in these circumstances, the slave was to be set at liberty, and the master punished by a fine." (Chapter XXVII)


 * "ROMAN IMPERIAL LAWS concerning Jews (329-553)" adapted from Amon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Wayne State Univ. Pr., 1987).:
 * "Confiscation of the Properties of Christian Converts to Judaism. Emperor Constantius II, July 3, 353":
 * "If someone shall become Jew from Christian and shall be joined to sacrilegious assemblies, we decree that his property shall be vindicated to the fisc's [state treasury's] dominion once the accusation has been proven."
 * "Prohibition of Christians from Participating in Pagan, Jewish, and Manichaean Cults. Emperors Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodosius I, May 21, 383":
 * "We punish the crime of Christians passing over to altars and temples by abrogating their power to bequeath in testament. Also those who despised the dignity of the Christian religion and name and polluted themselves with the Jewish contagions shall be punished for their disgraceful acts."
 * "Prohibition on Intermarriage. Emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I, and Arcadius, March 14, 388":
 * "No Jew shall take a Christian woman in marriage, neither shall a Christian marry a Jewess. Indeed, if anyone shall commit something of the kind, his crime shall be considered as adultery, with the right to accuse allowed the general public."
 * "Against God-fearers and Conversion to Judaism. Honorius and Theodosius II, April 1, 409":
 * "Some people, moreover, oblivious of their and their position, dare to transgress the Law to such an extent, that they force some to cease being Christian and adopt the abominable and vile name of the Jews. Although those that have committed this crime shall be legally condemned under the laws of the ancient emperors, still it does not bother us to admonish repeatedly, that those imbued in the Christian mysteries shall not be forced to adopt Jewish perversity, which is alien to the Roman Empire, and abjure Christianity. And if someone should believe that this be willfully attempted, we order that the instigators of the deed with their accomplices shall sugger the punishment decreed in the former laws, for it is graver than death and crueler than massacre when someone abjures the Christian faith and becomes polluted with the Jewish incredulity. We order, therefore, that [...] and legislate in a decree devoted to God, namely under this instruction, that if someone shall attempt to rise against this law, let him know that he shall be punished for high treason."
 * "Protection of Synagogues and the Jewish Sabbath. Honorius with Theodosius II, July 26, 412":
 * "No one shall dare to violate or seize and occupy what are known the names of synagogues and are assuredly frequented by the conventicles of the Jews, for all must retain what is theirs with unmolested right and without harm to religion and cult. Furthermore, since the ancient custom and usage preserved the day of the Sabbath, sacred to the said people of the Jews, we decree that this too must be avoided..."
 * "Allowing Jewish Converts to Christianity to Return to Judaism. Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II, September 24, 416":
 * "It had been ordained, in the old laws as well as in ours, that, since we have learned that convicts of the Jewish religion want to join the community of the Church in order to escape their crimes and out of various necessities, this is done not from devotion to the Faith, but as a false simulation. Let the judges of the provinces in which such crimes are said to have been committed know, therefore, that our laws are to be obeyed in such a way that those people whom they shall observe as not adhering to this cult in the constancy of their religious profession, nor to be imbued with the faith and mysteries of the venerable baptism, are to be allowed to return to their own law, for it is of greater benefit to Christianity."
 * "Exclusion of Jews from Public Service. Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II, March 10, 418":
 * "As for those, however, who are subject to the perversity of this [Jewish] nation and are proven to have entered the Military Service, we decree that their military belt shall be undone without any hesitation, and that they shall not derive any help or protection from their former merits."
 * "Policy on Synagogues. Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II, February 15, 423":
 * "It seems right that in the future none of the synagogues of the Jews shall either be indiscriminately seized or put on fire. If there are some synagogues that were seized or vindicated to churches or indeed consecrated to the venerable mysteries in a recent undertaking and after the law was passed, they shall be given in exchange new places, on which they could build, that is, to the measure of the synagogues taken. Votive offerings as well, if they are in fact seized, shall be returned to them provided that they have not yet been dedicated to the sacred mysteries; but if a venerable consecration does not permit their restitution, they shall be given the exact price for them. No synagogue shall be constructed from now on, and the old ones shall remain in their state."
 * "Policy toward Jews, Heretics, and Pagans. Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II, April 9, 423":
 * "However, these Jews shall be condemned to confiscation of property as well as to perpetual exile, If it shall be established that they have circumcised a man of our Faith or ordered him to be circumcised."
 * "Policy in Regard to Jews, Samaritans, Pagans, and Heretics. Theodosius II and Valentinian III, January 31, 438":
 * "This law orders in particular that no Jew and no Samaritan shall attain any honor of State government or administration, and that on no account shall they receive the office of Protector, nor by prison guards, lest perchance they dare molest Christians, or even priests, under pretext of any office, and lest the above mentioned who are enemies of our law, presume to condemn people or judge them under our laws. They shall not dare to construct anew any synagogue. For if they shall do so they shall know that this building shall benefit the Catholic Church and the builders of that building shall be fined fifty in gold weight. But let them know that this is allowed them, that they should repair the ruins of their synagogues. This, however, is particularly comprehended in this law, that no Jew shall dare to transfer to his law a Christian, slave or freeborn, by any persuasion whatsoever or be punished by death and loss of property."
 * "Church Property and Non-Christians From the Code of Justinian, Chapter XIV, March 18, 545":
 * '''"...if the Jews shall dare to build a new synagogue, the holy church of the place shall vindicate the buildings to its ownership."

'''
 * As per the Fiscus Judaicus and the events relating to Roman Imperial persecution of Jews, Austin Simmons analyzes the texts relating to and the inscriptions of the "Franks Casket":
 * "SECTION 11 - Back Side, Lower Left: Judgement Under Vespasian: There is no escaping Roman authority. We pass now to the scene on the back lower left (fig. 12), the imperial court where father and son sit and lay the dom or 'judgement' upon the Jewish race" (page 32).
 * "Josephus says that Vespasian 'laid a tribute upon the Jews wheresoever they were, and enjoined every one of them to bring two drachmae every year into the Capitol, as they used to pay the same to the temple at Jerusalem'" (pg. 32).
 * "Says Josephus: 'and as for the rest of the multitude that were above seventeen years old, he put them into bonds, and sent them to the Egyptian mines. Titus also sent a great number into the provinces, as a present to them, that they might be destroyed upon their theatres, by the sword and by the wild beasts; but those that were under seventeen years of age were sold for slaves... now the number of those that were carried captive during this whole war was collected to be ninety-seven thousand'" (pg. 33).

More European racial persecutions toward Jews later occurred during the Spanish Inquistion, when even Jews who had converted (Conversos) to Christianity, were put to death; you may refer to one notable occasion after the murder of Pedro de Arbués (See that page, and the description of it on the Spanish Inquistion page).

Incidences like these prove that no matter what Jews do or how they perceive themselves, no matter what their skin, hair, or eye color, their political or religious beliefs, etc. Europeans have never considered and will consider Jews truly "white" or European, and further confirms the idea—with genetics, literary narratives, interviews and polling, political campaigns, etc.—that Jews are and belong to their own Middle Eastern, Semitic, Ethnocultural group, like the Druze. Thank you for your time. Jeffgr9 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

American diaspora
The number of Americans living aboard now (as of 2016) grew to 10 million and about 2 million descendants of US citizens worldwide, should be one of the world's largest citizenry diasporas. Although the largest ethnic diasporas are Chinese (54-58 million citizens from China, up to 100 million total ethnic Chinese) and Irish (80 million descendants), the number of American expats is higher than ever. Europe has between 4.5 to 5.5 million American expats, Mexico has 3 to 3.5 million-the highest of any country, Canada has one million with a history of American immigration, Australia 200,000 and Israel 200,000. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Usonians
Americans or Usonians http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/usonian?q=Usonian

Any opinions on this recent add that I reverted. I reverted and said, requires a chat on the talkpage so I am requesting other thoughts. I felt the term was not widely used or well known to be in the heading like that? Govindaharihari (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur with the removal, as it's a very minor alternative name. Curiously, no alternative names are mentioned in the article at all, and there wasn't even a link to Names for United States citizens, which does cover Usonian. I added the link to the See Also section, but the article could probably use a brief mention of the fact that alternative names exist, both in English and other languages. - BilCat (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To some, "Americans" might imply any and all people in the Americas. We should note that it is seldom used that way, probably in the lede.  Names for United States citizens explains this, so I think a brief statement with a link to that would avoid some confusion.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I added a small paragraph to the lede about Americans=people from USA, not the Americas, per Names for United States citizens. --A D Monroe III (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction
The articles seems to contradict itself. In the opening paragraph it metions there is no American ethnicity. However the article then goes on to say that the largest group is American with a whole article about it. So did some searching and came to relies the sources here are a patchwork of off quotes. ==09:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:5E3:6CC1:6CCA:4FFF:9CFD:B477 (talk)

Middle Easterners and North Africans
This section needs to be summarized better. It is far longer than other sections about populations of a larger size. I will tag it accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * While the proposed MENA racial category is not yet official, see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census and these articles from WaPo & USA Today, and those within the MENA population are considered White American. Therefore I am proposing that until this category is official the section be deleted. It is also far larger than other population groups that are far bigger, therefore given its current size it has undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Americans. 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/20101224044247/http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb10-cn93.html to http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb10-cn93.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418070413/http://france.usembassy.gov:80/us-france-americans.html to http://france.usembassy.gov/us-france-americans.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6gpGlyhlr?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffactfinder.census.gov%2Ffaces%2Ftableservices%2Fjsf%2Fpages%2Fproductview.xhtml%3Fsrc%3Dbkmk to http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726200819/http://www.jacl.org/edu/APAHistory.pdf to http://www.jacl.org/edu/APAHistory.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090407053149/http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf to http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).


 * https://web.archive.org/web/20101224044247/http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb10-cn93.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20150418070413/http://france.usembassy.gov:80/us-france-americans.html
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20110726200819/http://www.jacl.org/edu/APAHistory.pdf
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20090407053149/http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf


 * http://www.webcitation.org/6gpGlyhlr?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffactfinder.census.gov%2Ffaces%2Ftableservices%2Fjsf%2Fpages%2Fproductview.xhtml%3Fsrc%3Dbkmk
 * http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  15:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

American diaspora in Russia
I have reverted your re-addition per WP:BRD. Moreover, when first added the content which was added failed verification, and I added the American diaspora in Russia population with an accurate figure from a Russian source. Please get consensus before making a reversion of the reversion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Americans. 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/20121130162445/http://seoul.usembassy.gov/acs_service.html to http://seoul.usembassy.gov/acs_service.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://france.usembassy.gov/us-france-americans.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514214156/http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110429_402722638.htm to http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110429_402722638.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420175844/http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1090.html to http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1090.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106040602/http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/year/y06-08.xls to http://sowf.moi.gov.tw/stat/year/y06-08.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315191301/https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/1997standards.html to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/1997standards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929074108/http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_008.htm to http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_008.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100910002417/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=PEP_2007_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2007_EST_G2007_T004_2007&-CONTEXT=dt&-redoLog=true&-currentselections=PEP_2006_EST_G2006_T004_2006&-geo_id=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=PEP_2007_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2007_EST_G2007_T004_2007&-CONTEXT=dt&-redoLog=true&-currentselections=PEP_2006_EST_G2006_T004_2006&-geo_id=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100902101116/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G2000_B03002&-CONTEXT=dt&-redoLog=true&-currentselections=PEP_2006_EST_G2006_T004_2006&-geo_id=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G2000_B03002&-CONTEXT=dt&-redoLog=true&-currentselections=PEP_2006_EST_G2006_T004_2006&-geo_id=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100825014348/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G2000_B02001&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=306&-redoLog=true&-currentselections=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_B02001&-currentselections=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_B02003&-currentselections=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_C02003&-geo_id=01000US&-geo_id=02000US1&-geo_id=02000US2&-geo_id=02000US3&-geo_id=02000US4&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-mt_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G2000_B02001&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=306&-redoLog=true&-currentselections=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_B02001&-currentselections=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_B02003&-currentselections=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_C02003&-geo_id=01000US&-geo_id=02000US1&-geo_id=02000US2&-geo_id=02000US3&-geo_id=02000US4&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IPTable?_bm=y&-context=ip&-reg=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_S0201%3A031%3BACS_2007_3YR_G00_S0201PR%3A031%3BACS_2007_3YR_G00_S0201T%3A031%3BACS_2007_3YR_G00_S0201TPR%3A031&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_S0201&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_S0201PR&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_S0201T&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_S0201TPR&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-tree_id=3307&-geo_id=31000US16980&-geo_id=31000US19100&-geo_id=31000US31100&-geo_id=31000US35620&-geo_id=31000US41740&-geo_id=31000US41860&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207192658/http://www.aaiusa.org/page/file/b44c4328067fdc4dce_fybmvypay.pdf/TXdemographics.pdf to http://www.aaiusa.org/page/file/b44c4328067fdc4dce_fybmvypay.pdf/TXdemographics.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.adfl.org/resources/enrollments.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705235552/http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart15.html to http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart15.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"... The Philippines used to be an American territory, you know."
Yes, but the sentence in question is about groups who "became American." To the best of my knowledge, colonised Filipinos were never granted any sort of legal status as Americans. No rights of citizenship, representation, etc. PaulCHebert (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do more research, as I have rescinded your removal of content, and see United States nationality law, as well as . It was anti-Asian sentiment that led to this, as verified here: . Former Americans, who had their National status rescinded.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is an additional reference: http://socialwork.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.001.0001/acrefore-9780199975839-e-852 . During the American period, Filipinos were taught by the U.S. instituted education system, part of whom were led by Thomasites, that they were Americans. They immigrated, in the first and second waves, to the U.S. that they were was their own, only to be hit with racism which challenged the ideals they were taught, as written about in America is in the Heart. As the Great Depression set in, incidents of violence rose, and in an effort to remove American Nationals, the Philippine Indepence Act was passed, and our status rescinded (to the joy of racist, and Filipino elites who were nationalist (and wanted to consolidate power in their own ranks)). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to get much involved in this discussion just now and my internet connection is getting dodgy but, perhaps prematurely, I recently added a cite to the article, quoting from it: "the status of Filipinos in the Philippines as American nationals existed from 1900 to 1946" . The Philippine Independence Act mentioned above was promulgated in 1934, and I note that it says, "For the purposes of the Immigration Act of 1917, [...] citizens of the Philippine Islands who are not citizens of the United States shall be considered as if they were aliens." (emphasis mine). I have not explored what impact that restriction I've emphasized might have had on the reclassification as far st the purposes of this article goes, I don't have the time to explore that in detail now, and I don't have legal training in any case. I trust that involved editors with more available time and with relevant training will remove or appropriately modify the cite I've added. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to get much involved in this discussion just now and my internet connection is getting dodgy but, perhaps prematurely, I recently added a cite to the article, quoting from it: "the status of Filipinos in the Philippines as American nationals existed from 1900 to 1946" . The Philippine Independence Act mentioned above was promulgated in 1934, and I note that it says, "For the purposes of the Immigration Act of 1917, [...] citizens of the Philippine Islands who are not citizens of the United States shall be considered as if they were aliens." (emphasis mine). I have not explored what impact that restriction I've emphasized might have had on the reclassification as far st the purposes of this article goes, I don't have the time to explore that in detail now, and I don't have legal training in any case. I trust that involved editors with more available time and with relevant training will remove or appropriately modify the cite I've added. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. PaulCHebert (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The previous cite, if memory serves me, verifies the expansion of the U.S. into multiple overseas locations, including the Philippine Islands (By way of the Treaty of Paris due to the Spanish-American War). What can be verified is that those people in the Philippine Islands who did not actively choose to remain citizens of Spain, would be Americans. That due to the want not to make those in Insular areas citizens, National status was extended instead. That, as I previously stated, due to multiple factors (racism being one of them), that the status was revoked in 1934 and those nationals who were in the U.S. were asked to voluntarily return back to the Philippines (a few did, not many or the majority). Then after World War 2, those who did remain within the U.S. were granted Citizenship. Therefore, all Filipinos from 1899 until 1934, were American Nationals. Then all Filipinos who were presently within the United States at the time of the change in laws passage were U.S. Citizens after 1946. There for all Filipinos have the heritage of once being American, and those who presently have U.S. Citizenship are all definitely American.
 * Going by the content in the lead, not only Citizens of the United States can claim to be Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

MENA section
The issues that I brought up last year, still have not been resolved. The section about those who will be classified as MENA in the 2020 census. I will boldly reduce the content to give it due weight Most of this material should be in an article specific to the MENA classification, not here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I have made some reduction, however, the section is still several paragraphs longer than all other sub-sections of the "Racial and ethnic groups" section. How can we reduce this further?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

So with it not being used by USCB, do we exclude it in the article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As there were no objects, I have removed the section. The current list of races and ethnicity are those recognized and utilized by the United States Census Bureau. To include a categorization not used by the USCB would be outside of previous norms for this article, although consensus can change. I admit that this removal was done boldly, and I am more than willing to reverse myself if there is consensus to keep the non-USCB ethnicity/grouping.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The next census, in 2020, wont include the MENA ethnicity, as linked above, and as reported in Newsweek.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is too soon, until it is utilized in a census.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * this article and others in WP are not controlled by what is in the census anyway and should never be so. Is this a significant group of Americans?  Yes.  It belongs in this article. Hmains (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What other categorization not utilized by the USCB should also be included in the opinion of Hmains?
 * Why is it that we have so far used the USCB categorization for race and ethnicity, and why does it appear that there has been past practice to only include those categorizations?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Nationals
On another note, would it be appropriate to label those as Americans if they have U.S.nationality, but not U.S. citizenship. I believe they are entitled to live and work in the U.S. but cannot take office or vote. --Scarslayer01 (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... The Nationality article says: "The most common distinguishing feature of citizenship is that citizens have the right to participate in the political life of the state, such as by voting or standing for election." There's a cite a bit further on, but I havent looked at the cited source. Voting rights in the U.S. are determined state-by-state and locality-by-locality -- standards vary. Qualification requirements for office also vary office by office. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Introductory sentence should state: Americans are nationals and citizens of the United States
Can we please revert this article to my version. It currently begins with "Americans are citizens of the United States of America." This is obviously a dishonest sentence, attempting to cover up a material fact. It is manifestly contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which was originally enacted in 1952 by the U.S. Congress. See ("The term 'national of the United States' means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.") (emphasis added); Jaen v. Sessions, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 17-1512, p.8 (2d Cir. Aug. 13, 2018) (case involving a U.S. citizen in removal proceedings); Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 2012) (same); Ricketts v. Attorney General of the United States, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 16-3182, p.5 note 3 (3d Cir. July 30, 2018) ("Citizenship and nationality are not synonymous. While all citizens are nationals, not all nationals are citizens."); Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300, 305-06 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (case involving a non-citizen national of the United States); Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 782 F.3d 9, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ("The sole such statutory provision that presently confers United States nationality upon non-citizens is ."); Matter of Navas-Acosta, 23 I&N Dec. 586, 587 (BIA 2003); see also ; ; . "Persons not born in the United States acquire [American citizenship or American nationality] by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 423-24 (1998). These cases are directly on point and there are no contentions between the parties. A "national of the United States" ("American national") who resided continuously inside the United States for decades and who cannot be deported under any circumstances, and who the U.S. Attorney General refuses to approve his or her application for naturalization, cannot be an "American"? If such person is not an American then what is he or she? What about an illegal alien, who wants to commit terrorism in the United States, and who obtained by fraud a U.S. birth certificate, U.S. citizenship, U.S. passport, etc. Is such person an American? I cited here the U.S. Congress, who represents all Americans, the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. courts of appeals, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and they're all in agreement with my above proposition. This article should rely more on Acts of Congress and U.S. Supreme Court precedents.--Libracarol (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, WP:DUE comes into play here.

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
 * A footnote to that says, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered."; learned arguments by WP editors matter not one whit. If there is a difference of viewpoint in prominent RSs, both viewpoints should be described and supported. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say there's someone on earth who disagrees with "Americans are nationals of the United States"? In your opinion, the 54,343 American Samoans are not Americans? See "Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law"; ; United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 264 (1997) ("Section 242 is a Reconstruction Era civil rights statute making it criminal to act (1) 'willfully' and (2) under color of law (3) to deprive a person of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."); United States v. Acosta, 470 F.3d 132, 136 (2d Cir. 2006); see also ; ; Ziglar v. Abbasi, ; Lyttle v. United States, 867 F.Supp.2d 1256, 1269 (M.D. Ga. 2012) (case of a U.S.-born citizen deported by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the government was forced to give the deported person about $175,000 in compensation). --Libracarol (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't have the time right now to try to decode and respond in detail to your argument above. It seems, though, to rely on the validity of your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY sources, and WP prefers reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. One place where I fault the above is in the quote you give as ""Persons not born in the United States acquire [American citizenship or American nationality] by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.". The text quoted is given in as "Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." Does "Americans are nationals of the United States" imply "Nationals of the United States are Americans"? Are the people of American Samoa classified as Americans? My guess is that some say yes and some say no. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * U.S. federal statutes and federal court precedents qualify as both WP:PRIMARY sources and as WP:SECONDARY sources, see, e.g., Federal Reporter, see also United States Government Publishing Office. One federal statute is for U.S. citizens and another is explicitly for U.S. nationals.  As such, my above emphasis is not faulty. It is common knowledge that all "nationals of the United States" are statutorily Americans, see, e.g.,, , , , , which means they cannot be deprived of that status or deported under any circumstances.  American Samoans have official U.S. documents (U.S.-issued certificates, passports, ID cards, etc.).   Name just one person who claims that "nationals of the United States" (e.g., American Samoans) are not Americans.--Libracarol (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This edit popped this discussion up on my watchlist. I am clearly not paying much attention to the discussion, which I think is in an irrecoverable POV loop. As far as the challenge above to name just one person who claims that "nationals of the United States" (e.g., American Samoans) are not Americans goes, asserts that American Samoans in general think of themselves as "Samoans not Americans". That is probably neither universally true nor universally untrue.


 * The term Americans is pretty imprecise; the best general definition is probably something like "people of the Americas", but this discussion focuses of those people who, by some definition, might be called United Statesians but are not and, in particular, the question of whether persons with U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship fall within that group. I'm guessing that there are multiple contradictory answers to that question in sources of varying reliability but which are less than rock solid as authorities on that specific point.


 * We're talking about the article's lead sentence here, and MOS:LEADSENTENCE says, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." I'm not sure whether or not American Samoans and others who hold U.S. nationality but not citizenships should be termed Americans. My guess is that there is less than universal agreement about that. I think that this probably falls within what this article should be about, though, and I think that this article probably ought to acknowledge that there is less than universal agreement about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Americans are citizens of the United States of America." might be edited to "Americans are citizens and nationals of the United States of America.", since -- what 99+% ? -- are citizens. Otherwise, rather than an edit war, I'd like to at least see a footnote, rather than a complete reversion of the information. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * does "Americans are citizens and nationals of the United States of America." (from above) imply the following:
 * U.S. citizens are Americans (I think that would probably be supportable)
 * U.S. nationals are Americans (I think it would be probably be supportable that some sources agree, and that some sources (e.g., ) assert that at least some U.S. nationals do not think of themselves as Americans) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As a non-American I find this discussion to be a bit strange, as far as I am aware Americans are people from the United States. It makes no difference to us foreigners about nationality or citizenship we dont see that level of granuality. Perhaps the view of Americans from Americans differs from the rest of us. MilborneOne (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This may be viewed as sort of tangential, but from an earlier, related discussion we have from the U.S. President, U.S. Congress, and the U.S. State Department speaking internationally in a Report to the United Nations,
 * - Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l). "The 'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace."
 * - The “territory of the United States” encompassing the U.S. Insular Areas in the GAO Report on page 1 means they are included within the geographic extent of the United States. We can quote without ellipses, “The Insular Areas are territory of the United States.”
 * - In the Common Core Report to the United Nations by the USG, it says on page 8 that the legal structure of the U.S. is "a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions.” The District of Columbia is constitutionally a U.S. territory as are five others self-governing commonwealths and territories in the Common Core report. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Wtmitchell is trying to say if some Puerto Ricans don't want to be called Americans, we should take out the entire Puerto Rican race as being no longer Americans. By law, every American is a "national and citizen" of the United States. United States includes American Samoa. A person can lose U.S. citizenship at any time (see Denaturalization) but nobody can lose U.S. nationality.--Libracarol (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Second sentence of the lead
The second sentence of the lead currently reads "Although nationals and citizens make up the majority of Americans, dual citizens, expatriates, and certain permanent residents, may also claim an American identity."

To me, this seems confusing and garbled. It divides Americans and those who may claim American identity into two groups: (1) nationals and citizens and (2) dual citizens, expats, and certain permanent residents. However, I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * one of the citizenships held by the dual citizens in the second group to would presumably be US citizenship; if that is the case, as US citizens they belong in the first group.
 * the term expats is vague as used here. If it refers to US citizens who are expatriated to another country, as US citizens those belong in the first group; if i refers to non-US citizens who are expatriated to the US, wouldn't those be the permanent residents mentioned separately in the second group?
 * I think it is trying to say that some (but not all) among these three groups may claim American identity, but obviously only the U.S. government can decide that and on a case-by-case analysis. Children (aliens) born outside the U.S. are entitled to American nationality "after" proven by "clear and convincing evidence" that at least one of their parents is either an American national or an American citizen. --Libracarol (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will slightly modify the second sentence in the introduction paragraph based on, particularly . It basically says that the U.S. government can at any time open a case against any duel-citizen and any expat in order to strip such person of citizenship or nationality.--Libracarol (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Puerto Rico should be included
Just as Puerto Ricans are counted as immigrants, Americans in Puerto Rico must.

It must be unilateral, if Puerto Ricans in the US they appear as immigrants, the Americans must be in Puerto Rico as such, it is not neutral like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.113.112.97 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I am confused on why Puerto Ricans and Americans are different, they are both entitled to U.S. citizenship. Puerto Ricans might be their own ethnic group but in terms of citizenship, they are entitled to U.S. citizenship. Especially those who had their birth take place on the Island of Puerto Rico. --Scarslayer01 (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Puerto Rico is not a state of the US, it is a territory. While in technicality they do have American citizenship, they also do have Puerto Rican citizenship. This has been judicially reviewed and affirmed numerous times. Therefore Puerto Ricans cannot be counted as immigrants and vice versa for Americans in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is in technicality part of the US, and therefore Puerto Ricans are also citizens of the US. WikiRay360 (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

AMERICANS IN BRAZIL
I GAVE THE FOLLOWING SOURCE ON MY EDITION (90K AMERICANS LIVING IN BRAZIL): https://www.uol/noticias/especiais/imigrantes-brasil-venezuelanos-refugiados-media-mundial.htm#imagem-3

Please, take a look on the third picture (from the bottom to the top of the page), where you see the two maps. The first map says "para onde vão os brasileiros" (where do brazilians goes), and the second one says "de onde vêm os estrangeiros" (where do the foreign population come), there you can see that 90K americans were living in Brazil by the 2017. THE SOURCE OF THE MAP IS THE UNITED NATIONS. B777-300ER (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I read the translation, it doesn't say what the above editor claims what it says.
 * Moreover, the organization which does the Census of Brazil, counts a far smaller number than 90k, more like 51.9k.-- Right Cow Left Coast  (Moo) 08:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

US national vs. US citizen
I was redirected to this article from the article on American Samoa which states that "Samoans are American nationals but not American citizens". I couldn't understand, so I came here. This article however does not explain it, nor even touch such an issue what it means to be "an American nationals but not an American citizen", when or how it is possible. It only states that Americans are nationals and citizens of the USA". Shouldn't this be corrected by someone - here or there, or yet elsewhere? noychoH (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:REFD
 * Not really interested. Mine was a suggestion to those who work on THIS article.
 * As for the difference between Nationals and Citizens, please see the article United States nationality law, and the appropriate section about Nationals.-- Right Cow Left Coast  (Moo) 08:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, I've finally found it by myself, yet I was thinking first of all about THIS article. All the best. 112.53.74.84 (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Links to the relevant articles are already provided in the lead section.-- Right Cow Left Coast  (Moo) 02:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

About US Permanent residents
US Code, §1101 (a) (22) says - The term "national of the United States" means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States -. Accordingly, Permanent residents are nationals of the United States, and hence, they are Americans. 98.148.227.28 (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's quite a leap from residence to allegiance. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this edit. I do not find support in this cited supporting source for an assertion that all dual citizens, expatriates, and permanent residents may claim American nationality. I have not been able to view the other source cited there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

American expats in India
, thanks for the addition of new information from a reliable source. I am wondering if this is a typo though. According to The New York Times, in 2008 the number of registered Americans in India was about 42k; I have added that to the article. Also if the number of Americans is in fact 700k, as the White House published, it would be the third largest foreign born population in India, after Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin, per this information from the United Nations. Moreover, Pew Research has a 2017 estimate of migrants in India, from the United States, at under 10k; this is also reflected in their 2017 fact tank article, which does not include the United States as one of India's top immigrant sources.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 07:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC) There is also an article about this subject, albeit a stub or start class article, Americans in India.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 01:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Perhaps this is due to former H-4 visa Indian Americans returning to India, or retiring naturalized Indian Americans returning to India upon retirement? I am not sure, but it could explain the jump from 42k in 2008 (or is it 60k in 2002) to 700k; but that is speculation on my part and doesn't belong in the article space.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 01:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC) How can there be 700k Americans living in India, when not 12 years ago there were only 352k registered foreigners living in India? That would mean that the legal immigrant population in India in less than two decades would have had to more than double in size. Granted that is a small fraction of the total population of India, but it would be noticeable and something easy to document, no?-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 02:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to all the complexities here, but US-born American citizens, without some kind of ancestral claim to the informal "overseas citizenship of India," or OCI, cannot stay in India for longer than six months.  For India does not recognize dual citizenship.  If they have retired, their US social security benefits will cease after six months. These people are very likely naturalized Indian-Americans.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

please stop removing verified content from the infobox. Continued removal of verified content, without consensus, can be considered disruptive editing or vandalism.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 01:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Mormonism
Why is Mormonism not in the Infobox? (The Sr Guy (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC))
 * Because it's included with Christianity under "other denominations". - BilCat (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * but why not include Mormonism separate from "other denominations"? after all Mormons are the majority in the state of Utah. The Sr Guy (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * An infobox is intended to be a summary basic information, and isn't designed to be exhaustive (the extremely over-long "Regions with significant populations" lost notwithstanding!) Mormonism is listed in the table in the "Religion" section of the article. Per that table, Mormons make up 1.6% of the total US population, compared to 46.5% for Protestants, and 20.8% for Catholics. While it's certainly worth mentioning in the Utah article, it's relatively insignificant for the nation as a whole. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * oh yes, i understand. The Sr Guy (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Americans? Really?
South Americans are not Americans? Other North Americans are not Americans? Who wrote this? What do you refer to by "South America"? Texas and Florida? Americo Vespucio (Amerigo Verpucci), the man after whom the continent was named, never explored North America. If he were alive, he wouldn't care less about the United States of North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.223.221 (talk)


 * I'm continually amazed at the inability of some people to recognize and admit that words can mean or refer to one thing in one context, and a different thing in another. But politics can be that way some times. By the way, Texans and Floridians are called "Southerners" or "Southern Americans" in American English, and they speak "Southern American English"; people from South America are called "South Americans". It's really not that difficult to understand if you take the time to learn about and respect another language and culture. BilCat (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I often hear Latin Americans complain about the apparently unconscious restriction of the word 'Americans' to estadunidenses. In Europe and particularly here in the UK, the reason for American usually referring to the USA is the historic degree of exposure and connection to the US, compared to other parts of America. However, the meaning is not always sufficiently clear from context. For example, at African Americans, the first sentence 'African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa' is an inadequate introduction. It doesn't define the continent of Africa as sub-Saharan Africa, and leaves open for example the question of whether Afro-Cubans or Afro-Dominicans are included as subjects of the article.
 * This problem doesn't just apply to this article, but throughout article space. I'd appeal to US editors to remember international English-speaking audiences who may use 'American' according to other idioms. --Cedderstk 09:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you have anything concrete to offer on that? In my experience, south and central Americans, when not using their country name, will usually identify themselves with one of those two prefixes, and only rarely as "americanos", and even then, only in the same globalizing context, where an American (United Statesian) might say, "the Americas". I've rarely heard someone from Chile or Mexico say they are "americano". (And those Chileans who are antiamericano are not self-hating.) If you have other experiences, I'd like to hear about it.  That said, this is en-wiki, so what people say in other languages is irrelevant here. Just like we don't get to mandate that Spanish-speaking countries call us americanos if the've decided that estadounidenses is their word for it. (Btw, in some Latin American countries, I was used to my nationality being described as norteamericano, even though in theory, that could include Canada or Mexico, but it just didn't.) Mathglot (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)