Talk:Birthright citizenship in the United States/Archive 2

Edits to the "The Constitution'" section
I've edited this section, changing the "controversial over automatic birthright citizenship, with its opponents pointing to statements demonstrating the phrase in the amendment was intended to ..." bit. I wasn't able to answer the question "opponents of what?" from the earlier wording. I've also directly quoted a snippet from the debates in the footnote. As I read it, the so-called "contention" at issue is between those who interpret as meaning

vs. persons who interpret that as meaning

Also, recalling the discussion snippet here saying "... if the editor is using the term 'controversial' to reflect that there is an obvious ongoing dispute in the sources about the topic, that's perfectly acceptable. if the editor is using the term 'controversial' to apply to only one side of a debate, however, more care is called for." and taking the use of contention here to be similar to what that snippet says about controversial, it bothered me that "Some contention exists ..." went on to speak only about one side of the contention. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've condensed the whole section to avoid WP:OR analysis of Congressional intent based on the Congressional Record. The section opined that as with other constitutional provisions Congress's intent here was subject to debate.  All of that was unsourced, so factored out.  This particular section is about what the law is, not what people think of the law.  Congressional intent does not matter to the law unless the law is challenged and, under the circumstances of the challenge, the body in a position to change or overturn the law decides to consider congressional intent.  Until then, it only matters that the source of the law is the constitution and that there is a current state of the law under the constitution.   Under the circumstances that whole section is best treated as part of the controversy, i.e. attempts to remake the law.  Also, the section gave an unreasonable POV slant to the so-called debate.  All we have is an editorial column in a paper framing a matter as being subject to debate, and saying what proponents on one side or the other argue.  However, the column does not establish this as a debate of any importance, just a matter brought up for discussion.  Given that, it is fair simply to say that there are varying interpretations, not go into the minority anti-citizenship viewpoint to the exclusion of others.Wikidemon (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Natural Born Citizen
The answer go back to basics. Children that are born in the U.S.A., having born parents born in the USA, are called Natural born Citizens. Children that are born in the USA, having one or two parents born outside the USA, are American citizens.Doesilky (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your source for the above claim? If you read the "Natural born citizen of the United States" article, you will see that there is quite a controversy over the definition of the term — and, as far as I'm aware, there is not any consensus for the particular definition you've proposed.  Richwales (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "jurisdiction"?
This is likely to sound to some like a tirade; sorry about that, but what I'm really trying to do is ask for information (sources) and to explain why I think it's important to find sources.

Can anyone find reliable sources to substantiate exactly what Senator Howard and other 19th-century politicians had in mind when they talked about "subject to US jurisdiction", "full and complete jurisdiction", etc., as criteria for whether or not someone born in the US should be considered a citizen? It seems to me that since much of the historical (and even contemporary) debate is circling around the question of "jurisdiction", then we should try to find whatever sources are available to clarify exactly what "jurisdiction" means (or what the relevant historical figures thought it meant).

A big part of my problem understanding some views on US birthright citizenship is that, in my view, being "subject to US jurisdiction" means, by definition, being subject to US law — i.e., being liable for criminal prosecution in the US if accused of breaking the law, being subject to a lawsuit in a US court if accused of tortious actions, and such. In this sense, foreign diplomats may rightly be said not to be subject to US jurisdiction (because of the concept of diplomatic immunity) — but other aliens in the US definitely are subject to US jurisdiction, since they can be arrested, jailed, sued, etc., just as US citizens can have such things happen to them in the US as a result of their actions (or alleged actions).

Attempts to define being subject to US jurisdiction as not being "subject to any foreign power" are, as I see it, problematic, since the US has no control over the laws or policies of other countries. A country, for example, might (and, indeed, many countries do) choose to thumb its nose at US law by ignoring someone's naturalization as a US citizen and insisting that the person in question, and even his/her US-born children or grandchildren, are its citizens despite whatever the US wants to think — and yet a person in such a situation is still clearly under US jurisdiction (in the sense of being accountable under the US legal system), despite perhaps also being "subject to a foreign power" (in the eyes of "old country" officials who refuse to let go).

The only consistent definition of "subject to US jurisdiction" — or even "full and complete jurisdiction" — that I can grasp at the moment is this concept of being liable in US courts for alleged violation of US law. Any other definition seems, to me, to be a muddled attempt to define as non-citizens any particular group of people whom the speaker doesn't want to accept as citizens. Are the occasional members of Congress, for instance, who introduce legislation saying that the US-born children of illegal aliens are not "subject to US jurisdiction" (and thus not US citizens) really suggesting that such children ought to have diplomatic immunity and not be subject to any worse penalty than deportation if they manage to escape the attention of the authorities, grow up in the US, and then commit violent crimes later on? I somehow doubt it.

Any comments? And, again, I'm not trying here to start an argument; rather, I'm hoping people can come up with some useful information and sources that we can put to good use in the article, and hoping to help others (who might assume that "jurisdiction" obviously means something different from what I think it obviously means) understand why this is a point regarding which we need to try to find sources. Richwales (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Simply put, Wikipedia is concerned with what is sourced. 98% or so of what you just wrote has no source.  So, it's irrelevant.  It may even be POV.  Provide sources for what you've written above and then we'll have something that's actually worthwhile discussing.-12.50.79.2 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the IP's sentiment - as it applies to the article, not the question here. Sources are not needed for talk page discussion.  The article, on the other hand, contains an attempt to describe the senators' original intent in adopting the 14th amendment, sourced mostly to the senators' own words 140+ years ago as reported in the Congressional Record.  There are a number of logical and historical steps missing to establish what relevance if any that has to the present status of children of legal and illegal immigrants.  Do those particular quotes from those particular senators truly reflect the tenor of public debate over the amendment (using a primary source to establish that is original research)?  Do these public statements truly reflect their intent?  What private statements, politics, negotiations, and other motivations affected the Senate?  Why does the Senate's intent matter, and what about the intent of other bodies, and the politics of the time?  What does original intent have to do with the law?  Is there a current debate or controversy and in what circles?  What difference does it make, in that children of foreign immigrants (other than the specific list of exceptions) are universally deemed US citizens?  To hazard a quick answer to it, none of this history makes any difference in a legal context - the law is firmly decided.  There is some speculation regarding illegal immigrants because the US Supreme Court has never ruled on that, but most legal experts give it very little chance that the Court would permit a law barring citizenship to legal or illegal aliens without an amendment to the constitution, and most would give a constitutional amendment on the subject more or less zero chance of passage.  So from a legal and policy perspective this is all moot.  From a historical perspective, it does help explain how we got to where we are today, and for the anti-immigrant minority that looks to the past for inspiration, the original intent can be a rallying cry.  As far as I can tell Congress knew full well at the time that the 14th amendment would extend citizenship to children of aliens - though they probably did not make a distinction between legal and illegal aliens because the issue was simply not on anyone's mind.  There was certainly anti-immigrant sentiment back then, and more specifically racial and cultural bigotry against people from some parts of the world.  But the preoccupation with work visas and securing borders is a more recent thing.  To tell the story of how the 14th amendment lead to the current state of things would require a fairly insightful, complete historical account of changing conditions in America.  We don't have that in the article, and I think it is a disservice to imply to the reader that our poorly sourced account of the Senate debate informs them on it.  There are probably many good books on the subject of both the modern legal analysis, and the history - that is where I would look, scholarly and popular books on the subject.  I would avoid accounts of politicians, think tanks, and advocacy groups, and I would avoid newspaper accounts of the same as being relevant only to a recent non-mainstream political movement.  Occasionally, a particularly respectable newspaper will give a little blurb on the history and that may be reliable as far as it goes, but more complete works by experts and scholars is the way to go IMO.Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The talk page is for discussion of the article, not for discussion of the article's subject. Please use the talk page for it's intended purpose.  Thanks.-12.50.79.2 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I am using the talk page as intended — for discussion of the article — specifically, how to improve the article by clarifying an issue ("jurisdiction") which the article is dealing with, and what sources (if any) can be found to improve the article's treatment of this issue. Richwales (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the pg. 2890 cite for Sen. Howard, he says his meaning is informed by natural law, which is an key piece of information. To that end, I would suggest reading sections 119-22 of Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government, as Locke is the authority on natural law and its relation to government, and Locke specifically adresses the difference between consentual submission to a jursidictional authority, and being a subject to/of that jurisdiction (i.e., how an Englishman is subject to/of the Crown), in those sections. Foofighter20x (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, "subject" in the sense used in the amendment implies owing permanent allegiance to the United States. It's like that saying: you cannot serve two masters. You must owe permanent allegiance to the United States. Since the Naturalization Act of 1790, an immigrant who is naturalized has to swear before a court of record that he will support and defend the U.S. Constitution, and must also forswear any other foreign king, prince, potentate, or power (i.e. renounce all allegiance to those foreign powers). Only then does the U.S. possess a "full and complete jurisdiction." The best example I usually give if of a foreign tourist. Imagine you go to Italy. Yes, you are subject to their jurisdiction in the sense that your presense in their country indicates your tacit consent (again, read those relevant sections of Locke) to abide by their laws during your stay; however, you still have a right to access your nation's embassy and diplomats as a citizen of a foreign country, nor does your presense in Italy require your allegiance to that country. It is this latter sense of being subject to the jurisdiction that Locke, Howard, et al. were getting at; if you can have a right to access a foreign embassy, then the country you are present in lacks a "full and complete jurisdiction." Foofighter20x (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If I correctly understand the concept of primary vs. secondary sources in WP, we should probably look for sources which illustrate how the framers of the 14th Amendment understood jurisdiction, allegiance, etc., and cite those sources, rather than go directly to Locke or other primary sources and attempt to interpret for ourselves what these sources said/meant.


 * Also, an attempt to equate "full and complete jurisdiction" with "permanent allegiance", by citing US naturalization as an example, seems to me to be an incomplete answer to the issue of US-born children whose parents are of foreign origin. A baby born in the US doesn't need to take an oath of (permanent or exclusive) allegiance to the US in order to be a US citizen.  And although an ancestral country might choose to declare the baby to be one of its own citizens (via its own laws, and without regard or respect for US law), that doesn't limit the US's right (under US law) to consider the child to be a US citizen and to insist on ignoring claims on his/her allegiance from other countries.  So this is in danger of being a circular argument — saying that a US-born child is under the "full and complete jurisdiction" of the US from birth if and only if the child is a US citizen from birth.


 * And of course, if we fast-forward from the 1860's to the present, this argument might possibly mean that Congress does have the right to restrict 14th-Amendment "jurisdiction" (and thus citizenship at birth), without having to "go all the way" and confer diplomatic immunity — except that trying to do so would seem (at least to some, possibly to many or most) to be at odds with the Supreme Court majorities in Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe (both of which call into question the notion of limiting who is "subject to" or "within" US or state jurisdiction). Again, it seems to me that we need to cite a larger palette of secondary sources on this subject, in order to explain the relevant issues in a balanced and neutral manner, and as a safeguard against any of us injecting our own personal viewpoints into the article.  Richwales (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are using a rather large portion of the Article's talk page discussing what the law means in your opinion etc. In doing so, you are discussing the article's subject, not discussing the article itself.  With respect, what you think the law means is irrelevant to the article.  Find sources so that you are offering something relevant.  I don't want to see the article's talk page be turned into any editor's personal blog on birthright citizenship.-166.197.70.188 (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Common law origins...
Wth@ this...?? The United States never received the common law. This was explicitly stated by Justice Samuel Chase while riding circuit in United States v. Worrall, 2 U.S. 384 (1798), and latter by the SCOTUS in United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812). Foofighter20x (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Undoing Foofighters edit
With respect, I think furthering seperating discussion of the English system and then burying the parts just reduces comprehension. This article should be organized by theme, not time period.-166.198.210.167 (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please use the (diff) feature, huh? Wikipedia didn't create it for its "neat" factor. It has a use. I did a lot of work that just shouldn't be *undone* on a whim. If you want to change it back to the prior text, fine, but check the difference between the two edits first. Please, in the future, don't undo cite requests and cite adds. That's just... ugh. Very. Frustrating. To Accomplish. Over. Again. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect, you should have done different edits (multiple edits) rather than lump a whole bunch of edits done for a whole bunch of different reasons all into one huge, sudden change.-166.196.93.43 (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC) And I reallly wasn't trying to disrespect your work. I'm on the road, at a hotel, editing on an IPhone-166.196.128.23 (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you only want to change one part of an edit then "undo" can be too blunt. I understand that it can be frustrating to edit large articles on tiny screens. In those cases it's better to wait until you get to a full-sized computer. Deleting sourced information is viewed by some as vandalism, and shouldn't be done unless there's a good reason that you take the time to explain. Please be more careful in the future.   Will Beback    talk    03:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't have a problem with your edit: I didn't view it as disrespect toward me or my edit. I was just trying to direct you to the (diff) feature and impart some practical wiki-etiquette; no offense was taken. Just check an edit in the future, down to the nuts and bolts wiki-markup, before commencing a revert. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did you seperate the sections on English common law and the Expatriation act? They originally were next to each other (as they should be).  Your putting several different subsections between them seems arbitrary.-166.196.91.197 (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To keep them in some sort chronological order. I'm not exactly sure how you group the Expat Act with English common law, unless you are trying to use it to counter Swayne's quote, in which case the Act belongs under the ECL heading and not its own. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be value in a chronological order, but if so, it's minimal. On the other hand, if the article is going to discuss English birthright citizenship,  then the act which rejected English birthright citizenship is tightly related and, so, should be very nearby on the page.-166.198.45.136 (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And might I please suggest to the above IP user (I'm assuming those comments all came from the same user) that it would very helpful, all around, if you could create and use an account? See "WP:Why create an account?" for more on this.  This is especially relevant if, as it appears, your Internet connection is giving you a different dynamic IP address every time you write something.  People should not be forced to guess whether five posts from different IP addresses (even if they're close enough that they might be on the same ISP) are from a single editor, or from several different (but like-minded) editors.  And sorry for posting this comment here on the article's talk page, but by definition of the nature of the problem, you don't have a talk page of your own to say it on (and if you did have a talk page of your own, you would already have an account, and the issue wouldn't be coming up).  Richwales (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, Wikipedia is far too cliquish and Wikipedians are far too concerned with trying to assign value to posters rather than to posts. Wkipedia would,  in my opinion, be a better encyclopedia if more editors were anonymous - less focused on ego.-32.167.124.202 (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Creating an account is not an "ego" thing. Among other things, when extended editing and/or discussions are going on, having everyone use an account helps provide less refuge to those who might otherwise be inclined to engage in (or accuse others of) sockpuppetry.  You don't need to create a big, cluttered user page if you're not inclined to do that, but having an account is still a good idea.  Please read (or re-read) WP:Why create an account with an open mind.  I'll try to make this my last comment here on this issue.  Richwales (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having or not having an account has no bearing on sockpuppetry - as is evidenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of sockpuppets are people who have multiple accounts, NOT people who don't have an account. You feel that an account is a good idea.  I feel I've been clear in expressing my opinion that it is not.  I'm glad to see this is the end of the discussion.-12.50.79.2 (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll put it bluntly. Established editors will pay less attention to your position, and will have a much harder time carrying on a reasonable discussion with you, if you keep them in the dark by refusing to register for an account.  We are left with the two opposite possibilities that all IP editors on the page are probably the same person, or they are all different people, and no sensible way to make the distinction.  We can guess from the tone, position, and attitude - an IP editor here has been rather insistent, opinionated, accusatory, and difficult to work with here, all of which is trying enough to one's patience as it is on an article with NPOV problems on a contentious subject, cwithout the added vexation of not knowing whether the person one is responding to is part of the conversation or not.  It clogs things up either way, and the gut response is to simply dig in one's heels and discount IP contributions until things return to normal.  Wikidemon (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being candid. When I said that Wikipedia is far too cliquish and Wikipedians are far too concerned with assigning value to posters rather than to posts, I was attempting to point out that I'm aware of the dynamics you were talking about.  As for your personal issues with an IP editor, there are resources within Wikipedia for discussing civility issues.  The article talk page isn't one of them.  I trust we will all refocus and use the article's talk page for it's intended purpose - discussing the article.-32.164.176.169 (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Organization of Article
Is anyone else unhappy with the organization of the article? It seems like related material is broken up and arbitrarily spread out all over. I can't even figure out what the layout is suppossd to be as some sections are chronological for no apparent reason, others are just plain jumbled, etc. I'd like to discuss applying a thematic layout. Perhaps something that puts birth (in the US, outside the US, of US fathers, etc.) in one place, jurisdiction (court cases regarding jurisdiction, senate discussion regarding jurisdiction, etc.) in another place, etc. I'd like to get some discussion regarding a re-org before I do it, so that we can decide on a re-org that everybody will be happy with.-32.167.175.210 (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The best organization IMO would be (1) Lead, (2) What it is (a) in main, including statement of the current law (b) special cases, (3) history (a) English common law (b) history in America before and during passage of 14th amendment, (c) 14th amendment, (d) subsequent cases, (3) any notable material about attempts to change law. Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Expatriation Act of 1868
An IP editor objected to, and reverted, my recent set of edits regarding the Expatriation Act of 1868. I must take issue with the two points he made in his edit summary.

"npov policy does not apply to sources": While any one source does not need to be completely neutral within itself, a balanced set of sources should be used so as to (quoting WP:RS) "cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources". The one source that had been put forth as substantiating the claim that the Expatriation Act of 1868 "was an explicit rejection of birth-right citizenship as the ground for American citizenship" is a statement given before a House committee in 1997, advocating a specific (and clearly controversial) position — namely, that Congress does have the authority to limit birthright citizenship by defining who is subject to US jurisdiction, and that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. This, in my opinion, suggests that this one source (by itself) does not cover all significant sides of the issue, and I believe we are justified in questioning the appropriateness of using just this one source as a definitive summarization of the Expatriation Act of 1868. This source may, however, be useful to illustrate that some people favor limiting birthright citizenship — which is why I felt (and still feel) that it is more appropriately used later on in the article, in the "Current controversy" section.

"ceasing to be a citizen is not relevant to the article's subject": But this was precisely what the Expatriation Act of 1868 was written to allow. Indeed, if this issue isn't relevant to the subject of this article, then perhaps there is no real reason to discuss the Expatriation Act of 1868 in this article at all. On that basis, I'm inclined to delete the entire section (and move the House testimony source down to where it is a better fit).

Richwales (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to clarify some things. One, I agree that what we should strive for is a balanced representation of sources representing the diversity of views on the subject.  The way to do that is to add more sources, not remove or bury sources.  I'll help you look for sources which present differing opinions, but let's achieve npov the way Wikipedia policy expects us to - by adding, not obscurring sources.  And regarding the Expatriation Act, the issue of relevance is whether or not it ended the English common law wrt birthright citizenship, not expatriation.  Two seperate sources have now been added saying it did.  Perhaps you can find a source which says it didn't?32.164.162.39 (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We need to clarify exactly what these two sources (Edward Erler's 1997 Congressional testimony criticizing Wong Kim Ark and advocating limitations on jus soli citizenship, and page 194 of Brook Thomas's Civic Myths) mean when they talk about the "feudal" nature of birthright citizenship. As I read the cited page of Civic Myths (it can be found on Google Books, BTW, for anyone who wants to check it quickly for themselves), it seems plain to me that when Thomas described birthright citizenship as a "feudal" concept repudiated by the Expatriation Act of 1868, he is referring specifically to the concept of perpetual allegiance, not the concept of acquisition of citizenship via jus soli.  Note, for instance, how Thomas speaks (apparently approvingly) of Wong Kim Ark on the cited page and does not appear to see a fatal conflict between that case's affirmation of jus soli citizenship and the Expatriation Act of 1868.


 * I still object to saying that the Expatriation Act of 1868 constituted an "explicit rejection of birth-right citizenship" unless you (or someone else) can find a source that confirms that this law explicitly said anything about the acquisition of citizenship via jus soli. And regardless of when or whether any other sources can be found, I still believe that Erler's 1997 Congressional testimony is (clearly and on its face) a biased source, similar in nature to a blog or other self-published source, and is not suitable for use on WP in any way other than to document the existence of this particular viewpoint (see WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB).  I won't immediately move/remove this material again this instant, so as not to open myself up to accusations of edit-warring, but this is definitely my own current view of the situation.  I hope some other people will weigh in at this point and offer their own views.  Richwales (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I found the full text of the Expatriation Act of 1868, both in a law library, and also online (see, e.g., In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905, 908 (1884); Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad (1906), p. 178; Cases and Opinions on International Law (1893), p. 216).


 * It does not use the terms "birthright citizenship" or "feudal" at all. It also says nothing regarding eligibility (or non-eligibility) for US citizenship at birth, other than a complaint in the preamble (referring to naturalized immigrants) that "it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states".  The only other allusion in this Act to jus soli US citizenship is an affirmation that naturalized US citizens travelling abroad shall be entitled to "the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens".


 * In my opinion, a common-sense reading of the text of this Act fully supports a view that Congress was repudiating the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, but does not support a view that Congress was expressing an intention to limit the acquisition of US citizenship as a result of birth in the US — and if Erler or others are drawing the latter idea out of this text, he/they would appear to be misinterpreting the primary source. Richwales (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless further support is added for the interpretation that the act was an explicit rejection of birth-right citizenship as the ground for American citizenship (a direct quote from Erler's testimony, that), it seems to me that this interpretation should be treated as a WP:FRINGE view. Treating that view as FRINGE could justify removing mention of it from this article. Absent mention of this interpretation of the act in this article, the section concerning the act becomes irrelevent to this article, and should be removed.
 * If further support is added and that interpretation is mentioned in this article, it should not be given WP:UNDUE weight. IMO, that interpretation currently is given UNDUE weight (which goes against the WP:POV policy).
 * For more about Erler's views on the subject (which go beyond common-sense reading of the text of the act), see .-- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's some confusion regarding Wikipedia policy. One, if the source is pov, that isn't justification for removing it.  Two, you can study, analyze, interpret the law all you want, just don't do it here because it's original research.  As for comments by a noted legal historian, what guidelines are you using to judge it as fringe?  Consistency in editing is important, so we should be explicit.  It seems that your assertion is that if the article has only one source for any particular claim, then it's fringe.  Is that what you are asserting?-166.199.205.199 (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the IP dude immediately above. Boracay Bill is not taking into account a few key facts: the cite is of Erler's testimony before CONGRESS; it's posted on the Judiciary Committee's website; and, Erler is a California university professor. He may be extrapolating information from the available document, but he's well-qualified enough to do so. Had this been, like, Joe the Plumber saying this on Joe-the-Plumber.com, I could agree with Bill that it would qualify as fringe, but clearly Erler's view is hardly that. Foofighter20x (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The overall interpretation that seems to make the most sense here — indeed, the only interpretation, IMO, that doesn't make Erler out to be some sort of fringe character — is that when Erler (and possibly also Thomas) talk about "birthright citizenship", they are considering the term to comprise both acquisition of citizenship based on jus soli (i.e., born in the US = citizen of the US) and perpetual allegiance (i.e., once a citizen, always a citizen, whether you like it or not) as an indivisible package concept. This viewpoint would explain their use of the term "feudal" when referring to "birthright citizenship" — i.e., the idea that a person is tied to the land in which he/she was born and has no power or right to cut that tie — and it would also explain why Erler (and possibly also Thomas) felt the entire concept (both parts) got tossed out in 1868.


 * This article, on the other hand, has so far appeared to deal pretty much exclusively with acquisition of US citizenship through circumstances of one's birth. This seems consistent with the way citizenship law has evolved in the US — the idea that someone is obligated to remain a US citizen forever, whether he/she wants to or not, is basically obsolete in US law, whereas the big point of controversy today is whether certain people born on US soil ought to be accepted as being citizens in the first place — but this change of perspective complicates our efforts to understand and make proper use of sources which may be tacitly thinking about the original package deal.


 * Perhaps this means we need to refine the basic underlying meaning of what this article is dealing with. Maybe "birthright citizenship" isn't the right title for this article after all.  Otherwise, as we argue over what to do with comments by Erler and others, we may be stuck in a paradox between our duty not to engage in OR and our duty to use common sense.  Richwales (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Trying to guess what the applicability of Erler's comments are to birthright citizenship is original research. Read the Erler source.-32.164.186.100 (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I stand by my earlier comments. The Expatriation Act of 1868 is not lengthy, and specialized knowledge or understanding is not required in order for a layman to read it and confirm that it does not purport to limit the acquisition of US citizenship via jus soli in any way.  WP:OR does not require us to abandon common sense, and common sense dictates that if someone such as Erler claims the Expatriation Act of 1868 was a rejection of birthright citizenship, he must have been talking about something else, not specifically about acquisition of citizenship by birth.  A source backing my suggestion that Erler may have been focussed on the issue of perpetual allegiance when he said what he said can be seen on page 218 of Cases and Opinions on International Law (cited above), in which President Ulysses Grant wrote:  "The United States, who led the way in the overthrow of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance, are among the last to indicate how their own citizens may elect another nationality."  Richwales (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Common sense would involve noting that Erler's testimony was about whether Congress currently has the power to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. What you've done, trying to create an interpretation of Erler's testimony as seen through comments by Grant is synthesis.  Synthesis is a form of original research.-32.165.77.72 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

current controversy section
This section needs to be better written. It's not at all clear from reading the section what exactly the controversy is. If I were a foreigner reading this article, I'd walk away from it with the impression that there are people who oppose granting the children of illegal immigrants birthright citizenship, but I would not walk away with any basis for their position - other than personal belief. The so-called controversy is strongly supported in this article only on one side. More note- worthy sources are needed and the controversy more explicitly stated and sources.-166.197.102.200 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * By its nature, I think this controversy almost can't help but be one-sided, since those who accept or support the status quo haven't invested nearly as much effort into trying to justify keeping the current unrestricted jus soli citizenship rule intact as those who oppose the idea have spent trying to change it. There may not, in fact, be much more involved here beyond personal belief.  Would it, perhaps, be better to change the title of the section to something like "opposition to birthright citizenship" or "opposition to jus soli citizenship"?  Richwales (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "controversy" (really, more of a dispute than controversy) has to do with what "subject to it's jurisdiction" means. I recommend that we organize the article as I.) Pre-14th Amendment definitions of citizenship A.) English Common Law (up to the Expatriation Act) B.) Civil Rights Act of 1866 II.) The 14th Amendment A.) Born in the USA (including discussion of the children of US fathers born overseas) B.) "Subject to it's jurisdiction" (where all the present "current controversy"  stuff goes)-166.198.105.175 (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Law review articles to check out...
I don't know how well these relate to the topic at hand, but I pulled them up on Lexis-Nexis search for "birthright citizenship" and picked them for their title (as it related directly to citizenship). It'll take a while to read them all and mine them for subject matter or better sources. I'm posting them here in the hopes of some shared labor. Foofighter20x (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)



Embassies and jurisdiction
The people who actually ratified the citizenship clause made clear that "subject to it's jurisdiction" means the same quality of "subject to it's jurisdiction" as any US citizen. In the guide to the Mexican migrant, Mexico says that illegal emigrants are Mexican citizens and tells them that if they should get into trouble with US government officials, they should request to speak to someone at the Mexican embassy. This is clearly not the same course of action available to US citizens. Illegal immigrants are not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.-32.165.39.129 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure they are. Just because a Mexican citizen who gets into legal trouble in the US can ask to talk to Mexican embassy/consular officials does not mean that Mexican officials will be able to do anything more for him than explain to him his rights under US law (in Spanish), and perhaps also suggest a Spanish-speaking American lawyer who might be able/willing to represent him.  A Mexican citizen (illegal immigrant or not) who is accused of a crime or named in a lawsuit in the US can not escape the US justice system (i.e., can't escape US jurisdiction) in any way by requesting consular assistance from Mexico — unless he happens to be a Mexican diplomat and can demand "diplomatic immunity" (meaning the US isn't allowed to do anything to him except deport him to Mexico).  Whatever rights Mexico might claim their citizens have in the US, that's no guarantee that the US will go along with what Mexico says.  Richwales (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Children born overseas
If I'm reading the law right, children born overseas to one US citizen and one non-US citizen are in the following situation:
 * If the mother is a citizen:
 * If the parents are unmarried, the mother needs one year of physical presence in the US
 * If the parents are married, the mother needs five years of physical presence (and 2 since the age of 14).

This means that, if a US citizen mother is living abroad, has lived in the US for 1-4 years only, wants to have a child with a non-US father, and wants her child to get US citizenship, she is better off not marrying the child's father, at least until after the child's birth! Is this really correct? Nice "family values" :) Grover cleveland (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool stuff about the Canadian-American border babies
Interesting stuff to know. Thanks for including it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable Sources?
Richwales and Ravensfilre have removed the following sources claiming that they are unacceptable:
 * A record of the Senate discussions on the 14th Amendment as reported by the Library of Congress
 * Law written by Thomas Jefferson
 * Attorney General opinions of record (while, at the same time, they restored Attorney General opinion which is not of record - that is, private letters)
 * Federal Law (The Citizens' Act of 1924) written in the past 100 years

While, at the same time, they have restored -22:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Private letters written by an Attorney General
 * Dissenting opinion of a SCOTUS judge (-dissenting- as in 'the court found in contradiction of')


 * Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on secondary sources. The sources you added are primary sources. See WP:PSTS for more information. An appellate court opinion counts as a secondary source, and since it quotes the letter (a primary source) it's OK to repeat the quote. The sources you list would be acceptable if their just illustrating points already made in secondary sources. Interpreting primary sources on our own can lead to original research, wihich is not permitted. WP:NOR.   Will Beback    talk    00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As per policy,

''Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge'' . Putting law written by Thomas Jefferson or Attorney General opinion of record or federal law or Senate Discussions on the 14th Amendment in the article are within this policy. I'm happy to work with editors here to insure that no interpretation of these primary sources which aren't supported by NPOV secondary sources is put in the article -14:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, primary statements by politicians are very tricky and unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. Analysis of the legislative record is particularly iffy - even contemporary legal scholars cannot agree on the significance, which is often coded and filtered through many layers of procedure, partisanship, and formality.  I would put any judicial decision, finding, or opinion in the same boat.  They have precedence within their jurisdictional structure, only for purposes of making other judicial decisions.  They are not intended as a balanced or complete statement of facts.  One could per policy cite the congressional record as evidence that something was said (or at least inserted into the record) in Congress. However, that does not establish that this is what the person was actually thinking, or why Congress did something, nor does it establish that the statement is relevant or carries any WP:WEIGHT with respect to the issue at hand.  To cite the intent of Congress at the time regarding the 14th amendment you would have to find some pretty reliable modern scholarship on the issue, not only regarding why Congress did it but why it even matters what Congress was thinking, congressional intent being fairly far down on the list of how laws are interpreted.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The following is how the article will look if we remove references to law (as Will Beback suggests we should) and remove statements by politicians, judicial decisions, findings, and opinions (as you suggest, though you don't reference policy for doing so). Is this acceptable to you?

Birthright citizenship in the United States of America refers a person's acquisition of United States citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of his or her birth. It contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization later in life. Birthright citizenship may be conferred either by jus soli and jus sanguinis.

Current US law Citizenship in the United States is a matter of federal law, governed by the United States constitution.

English common law Birthright citizenship, as with much United States law, has its roots in English common law. Calvin’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608), was particularly important as it established that under English common law “a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth--a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection."

Expatriation Act of 1868 This act, a companion piece to the Fourteenth Amendment, was approved on 27 July, 1868.

The Expatriation Act of 1868 led President Ulysses S. Grant to write, in 1873, that that United States had "led the way in the overthrow of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance".

Dr. Edward J. Erler of California State University, San Bernardino, and Dr. Brook Thomas of the University of California, Irvine, have argued that this Act was an explicit rejection of birth-right citizenship as the ground for American citizenship, basing that argument on the debate that surrounded the passage of this act. .

Cases of interest

Children of immigrants In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark,, the Supreme Court ruled that a person who becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Although any language in Wong Kim Ark that suggests the Court's opinion and rationale could be expanded to include the children of illegal immigrants would be mere dicta as Wong's parents were in the country legally. Children born to foreign diplomats or, hypothetically, to hostile enemy forces or born on U.S. territory while it is under the control of a foreign power, are not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore are not citizens at birth. The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.
 * is born in the United States
 * of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
 * whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
 * whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment, although it has generally been assumed that they are. When accorded automatic birthright citizenship based on birth on American soil, a newborn's status is generally unaffected by the legal status or citizenship of that individual's mother or father.

Canadians transferred to US hospitals Since the majority of Canadians live in the relatively narrow strip of land close to the long border with the United States, Canadians in need of urgent care are occasionally transferred to nearby American medical facilities. In some circumstances, Canadian mothers facing a high-risk delivery have given birth in American hospitals. Such children are American citizens by birthright. Since, in this regard, Canadian law is similar to that of the US, children born in Canada of American parents are also Canadian citizens by birthright. In both situations that birthright citizenship is passed on to their children. In some cases birth in an American hospital (sometimes called "border babies") has resulted in people living much of their lives in Canada and unknowingly never holding Canadian Citizenship, a group sometimes called Lost Canadians

Modern dispute In the late 1990s opposition arose over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship on a jus soli basis to American-born children of illegal immigrants and tourists as fears grew in some circles that the existing law encouraged parents-to-be to come to the United States to have children in order to improve the parents' chances of attaining legal residency themselves. Some media correspondents and public leaders, including former congressman Virgil Goode, have controversially dubbed this the "anchor baby" situation,  and politicians have proposed legislation on this basis that might alter how birthright citizenship is awarded.

--69.143.48.114 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that a rhetorical question? If you wish to propose a change to the article I'd have to see the specific differences.  It would generally be okay to say "the law is x" with a link to the law, but any paraphrasing, abbreviation, or summary of the law is best cited to a secondary source with a courtesy link to the actual statute, constitutional provision, code section, etc.  Similarly, saying that a case decided X would be cited to a secondary source, with a courtesy or "see also" link to the text of the decision.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seemed to be suggesting earlier that we should remove primary statements by politicians, any judicial decision, finding, or opinion. You've now clarified your position to mean that you support the inclusion of primary sources (including the statements of Sen Howard, et al., the Jefferson laws, etc.)  as long as we work together to ensure that -interpretation- of those primary sources has a secondary source.  That's why I asked my question - it wasn't merely rhetorical, it was intended to get clarification of your position.--69.143.48.114 (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Plyler v. Doe
The "Cases of Interest" section should include a mention of Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 Supreme Court decision in which the majority said that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." Richwales (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just checked that. It's in a footnote saying, "... As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.", citing Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you track that footnote to the content within the finding that it is referencing, you find
 * Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction."
 * You also find, thoughout the case, that the judges were focusing on issues of the equal protection clause. For example, in the findings, they held The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term.
 * As this article isn't about the Equal Protection Clause, rather, it is about birthright citizenship, Plyler vs. Doe has no weight.--69.143.48.114 (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're saying Plyler v. Doe is irrelevant to birthright citizenship because it's talking about "within its jurisdiction" (in the Equal Protection clause) rather than "subject to the jurisdiction" (in the Citizenship clause), that argument appears very weak in light of the Court's remarks (quoting approvingly from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in the above footnote) stating that anyone "within the jurisdiction" of a state was thereby "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. It would certainly be appropriate here to find one or more secondary sources discussing the treatment of the concept of "jurisdiction" in the Plyler case; but even taking the Court's opinion directly, the understanding of "jurisdiction" in Plyler seems as relevant to what this concept means in the realm of birthright citizenship as are various other comments in this article suggesting a more limited view of "jurisdiction".  Richwales (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly want to make sure that any interpretations of primary sources in this article are properly sourced to secondary sources. If you feel that there are interpretations of primary sources which don't fit this requirement (and you seem to by your statement, "the understanding of 'jurisdiction' in 'Plyler" seems as relevant to what this concept means in the realm of birthright citizenship as are various other comments in this article suggesting a more limited view of 'jurisdiction'), I'd like you to point them out here so that we can address the issue. --69.143.48.114 (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a bit curious about your assertion, Richwales, that dicta made in "Plyler" about dicta made in "Wong Kim Ark" has weight. I think the firmest stance I can take at the present on that is to ask whether it does have weight (not saying it does or that it doesn't).  I'm certainly not prepared to say that it does and agree with you that secondary sources which say it does have weight in a court of law are needed.--69.143.48.114 (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly fair to prefer a good secondary source in a situation like this. I'll come back when I've managed to find such a source.  Or, perhaps someone else out there can find one.  Richwales (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson's Laws
I've read the section on Jefferson's laws and propose removing them entirely from the article. They are historically relevant, but here they have been very selectively edited in their quotations to advance a "birther" view of citizenship. In fact, both laws grant citizenship to all free/white people born in Virgina. The sections quoted by the person who included them are just the portions that deal specifically with children born outside of Virginia's boundaries. In short, the quotes are highly misleading as to the determination of citizens at birth, plus that editor gives no links to the actual full text of the laws. I initially added in that they granted citizenship to people born in Virginia, but after thinking it over, the whole section violates NPOV through selective quotation. I am therefore deleting it. 74.193.31.204 (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Political bias in article
Republicans in the border state of Arizona have indicated an intention to introduce state legislation which would prohibit the issuance of birth certificates to Arizona-born children of illegal immigrant parents — effectively denying such children U.S. citizenship by making it impossible for them to prove their citizenship.

This part needs to be deleted. Pure bias and opinion.--Ericg33 (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the last clause, since it doensn't reflect the source. However the basioc assertion seems correct and it's presented neutrally.   Will Beback    talk    00:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you read the CNN story which I used here as a source, you'll see it conflates and confuses the notions of having a birth certificate and being a US citizen. I'd really prefer to see another, better written source, but I couldn't find anything else this morning except for this CNN article.  I'll keep looking.  Richwales (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I found another source for this story (on Time's web site), and I reworked the new text somewhat to follow more closely the phrasing used in the Time.com story. This latter source seems to make it pretty clear that the Arizona proposal intends to bar Arizona-born children of illegal immigrants from being US citizens by refusing to issue them birth certificates.  Neither source really addresses the question of whether this technique would actually work; we may want to be on the lookout for some source which actually does deal with that point.  Richwales (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree: Delete the section.  A birth certificate (by itself) is not proof of citizenship.  It does not consider the status of the parents.  Even the children of diplomats, a class which is clearly excluded from citizenship by international law even if born here, are entitled to a certificate because the event of birth still happened here.  A certificate provides a link identifying the parents, so in combination with the parents' status, it may indicate the citizenship status of the child, but not even the parents' status are recorded thereon. 71.106.211.51 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Legal history/cases of interest sections...
These parts need to touch on a few more cases: Thanks, -- Foofighter20x (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Venus,
 * Shanks v. Dupont,
 * Minor v. Happersett,

Ridiculous bias in Wong Kim Ark section
The language of this decision is not at all ambiguous, but the entire section has been written to a small minority POV that birthright citizenship is somehow a hot legal dispute. This section needs to be completely overhauled as it's apparent someone's been pushing strong POV. Cool Hand Luke 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the "source" for the statement Although any language in Wong Kim Ark that suggests the Court's opinion and rationale could be expanded to include the children of illegal immigrants would be mere dicta as Wong's parents were in the country legally is the testimony of a single professor before a House subcommittee. This is hardly conclusive; all sorts of people present all sorts of opinions before Congressional committees all the time.  At best, one might say that people exist who hold this view; we certainly cannot present this statement as a settled fact on the basis of this one reference.


 * The statement Children born to foreign diplomats or, hypothetically, to hostile enemy forces or born on U.S. territory while it is under the control of a foreign power, are not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore are not citizens at birth is valid and can, as far as I know, be substantiated. And this point was acknowledged by the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court when they noted Wong's parents were not Chinese diplomats.  I understand some opponents of birthright citizenship have put forth the fringe theory that illegal immigrants are akin to hostile enemy forces invading the US (and thus that their US-born children are not entitled to US citizenship), but this is definitely not a mainstream viewpoint.


 * I have not read the Ancheta book (Race, Rights, and the Asian American Experience), but the summary of the book in Google Books does not lead me to believe it speaks comprehensively on the legal vs. illegal immigrant question. Even if it did, I question whether this book is a valid source to justify bringing up the question in connection with Wong Kim Ark.  I understand some opponents of birthright citizenship argue that a hypothetical case involving US-born children of illegal immigrants would be clearly distinguished from Wong Kim Ark on this point, but this is sheer speculation until and unless such a case actually comes before the Supreme Court.  Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 18:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if there is any such thing as a source on interpreting the constitution that is generally regarded as fair and unbiased. Everything is so polarized that I have a hard time imagining that such a source exists. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Legal scholarship and analysis, various other disciplines (such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, history) that study legal events, and respectable high-level newspapers, even the Wall Street Journal despite its conservative bent. They will all report settled matters of constitutional law as settled matters of law, they will earnestly describe how it came to be and what the ramifications are, and their analysis of likelihood of change, and not hype them up as disputes.  Even though conservative judges and liberal judges often come to see the world in a vastly different way, and come to opposite conclusions about what the Constitution has to say on the subject, at least the process they go through and the tools used are legal principles in service of legal aims, they are for the most part not directly political.


 * This isn't a liberal vs. conservative thing; it's not a controversial Warren Court decision. It's a 100 year-old precedent which hasn't been seriously challenged. It's well-established enough that politicians are mooting a nearly-impossible-to-pass constitutional amendment to "fix" the problem. That this article spends several paragraphs distinguishing an arguably different scenario which the court itself doesn't even contemplate shows how fringy it is. Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection at all to taking out everything in this subsection after "14th Amendment of the Constitution" — including the references, which are simply op. cit. pointers to other sources anyway. If any of this extra material turns out to have any proper place in the article at all, it should go somewhere in the "Current controversy" section.  Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 02:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * However, see WP:DUE. Note that it speaks of weight in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint as published by reliable sources, not weight according to how well settled the relevant legalities might be. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)


 * By all means, if we can find reliable sources which discuss Wong Kim Ark and its significance — including sources which might disagree with the court's majority — we should recognize them and give proper treatment to the viewpoints expressed therein. I would be wary, though, of any source which discusses Wong Kim Ark in the context of US-born children of illegal immigrants, since this simply was not an issue at the time the case arose, and any such talk would almost certainly be sheer speculation and/or private opinion.  Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 03:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I deleted everything after "14th Amendment of the Constitution". If people feel this material belongs in the article, I would suggest that (1) it should go in the "Current controversy" section; and (2) it needs to be better sourced, keeping in mind policies and guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and (of course) WP:NPOV. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 00:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I followed my own advice and added material based on two of the four deleted references to the "Current controversy" section — in the form of reports of conflicting opinions by two scholars, in an effort to preserve NPOV. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 05:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wong case is always misquoted as conferring citizenship upon the child of two permanent resident aliens just because he was born here. Such is not true. The true meaning behind the case is an implied finding of fact: That the parents in this situation would have naturalized if it were not for the Chinese Exclusion Act barring them from doing so. As the original meaning of the 14th Amendment excluded aliens, even those with permanent residency status, it is clear that the Court's action was to find the CEA unconstitutional and to consider the parents as having naturalized, thus meeting the requirements of the 14th Amendment for Mr. Wong to be considered "subject to the jurisdiction" when he was born. 71.106.213.194 (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Palmyra Atoll
Does jus soli apply to Palmyra Atoll? As an incorporated territory of the U.S.A., Palmyra is different from the unincorporated territories like American Samoa, Midway, etc. And what about U.S. vessels at sea? Goustien (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The relevant source would be the U.S. Department of State's Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 (Consular Affairs) or "7 FAM." Palmyra is not mentioned, but as an incorporated territory of the U.S. my assumption would be that in the unlikely event of someone being born there he or she would acquire U.S. citizenship at birth; this is the viewpoint in the Territories of the United States article. Birth aboard a U.S. flag vessel not in U.S. territorial waters, however, does not confer U.S. citizenship; the citizenship status of the parents under U.S. law would determine the child's citizenship status. 75.168.255.114 (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Birthright generation and proposed merger
It is being proposed that Birthright generation should be merged into Anchor baby. I would think this article (Birthright citizenship in the United States) would be a more appropriate merger target for the Birthright generation material. Comments? Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Heading changes by Foofighter20x
User:Foofighter20x has heading changes which suggest that persons who become citizens because their parents are citizens are not citizens by birth. This is probably not true and totally confuses the way the the matter is addressed in the article. I request Foofighter20x change the headings back and discuss here. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're going to need to elaborate more, because I'm not able to make any sense about what exactly it is you are complaining. With U.S. citizenship by parentage, the law assumes one was not born within the U.S. and is only made a citizen at birth by statute (that is, one is not born a citizen but is instead naturalized at birth), and not by the constitutional provision. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * After looking at it more, I suppose your headings are OK. The trick is one has to bear in mind the title of the article. In one heading, "Statute, by birth within the U.S.", the citizenship at birth is implied by the word "birth" in the heading, as well as by the article title. In the section "Statute, by parentage", at birth citizenship is only implied by the article title. And of course the U.S. has to invent hybrid categories that depend on both parentage and place of birth, just to make sure we can't write clear headings. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wtmitchell claims the heading 1.1 Statute, by birth within U.S. is wrong because it covers births not within the U.S. The nearest thing I can find to that is birth in outlying possessions of the United States. "Outlying possessions" are defined in U.S.C. TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER I, § 1101: "(29) The term 'outlying possessions of the United States' means American Samoa and Swains Island." So I fail to see any part of the section in question that covers birth outside the U.S.


 * I (wtmitchell) responded to that in the section below. My understanding is that, for citizenship purposes, the phrase "within the U.S." means within one of the U.S. states, within Washington, D.C., or within a U.S. Territory which is categorized as "incorporated" &mdash; whether or not categorized as "organized". My further understanding is that the U.S. currently has exactly one incorporated territory, Palmyra Atoll, which is categorized as an unorganized incorporated territory of the U.S. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Section heading: Statute, by birth within U.S.
Following on this, I explain that I don't think that Statute, by birth within U.S. is a good heading for a section which contains four items, two of which are:
 * "a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
 * It seems to me that the actual birthplace of such a person is not known, though birth within the U.S. is presumed if it is not disproved before the time limit period completes its run.


 * "a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person"
 * Persons described by that item, as I understand things, would not be persons born "within the U.S."
 * Here, I have in mind the distinction explained in Voting rights in the United States as, "U.S. citizens who reside in Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, or the United States Virgin Islands are not allowed to vote in U.S. national and presidential elections as these U.S. territories belong to the United States but are not part of the United States (i.e., they are unincorporated territories).", mentioning this ruling by the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals. My understanding is that persons born in those territories become U.S. citizens at birth (the road gets a bit rocky here re the difference between "Statutory" and "14th Amendment" citizen status, and I'll ignore that). Not mentioned there is American Samoa, Swains Island, or the unincorporated US Minor Outlying Islands, also currently unincorporated territories of the U.S. As I understand it, persons born in those territories become U.S. Nationals at birth, but not U.S. citizens (see United States nationality law).

I have not reverted the edit, but I suggest that reversion is appropriate here. Some clarification might be useful as well (clarification would certainly be useful to me if I've got the above wrong). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it comes down to what does "U.S." mean in the heading. Your analysis seems to suppose it means birth within one of the 50 states; birth in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc. would have to go in a different section, or the heading would have to change. A different way to interpret "U.S." would be "of all the nations of the world, which one was this person born in?" In that case, all the territories would have to be included, because a person born in one of those territories of parents who had lived in the territory for several generation would not be entitled to claim nationality in any nation except the U.S. I think the latter definition is more in line with what modern people (except judges) think "U.S." means. For example, we would say "The United States is a great place to live" rather than "The United States are great places to live."


 * As for the outlying possessions, I think some mention of them is appropriate, and I think it goes in this section because this is the section about place of birth.


 * If we drop "within US" from the heading, the heading no longer indicates the section is about place of birth, it's just about everyone who is a citizen at birth, and thus completely overlaps the article title. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

debate on 14th Amendment
I've made this change on the 14th Amendment page, too:

Sen. Cowan did not support Sen. Howard's citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment. In fact, he criticized it for granting citizenship to children of, among others, Chinese and Gypsies, and he voted for Sen. Doolittle's wording regarding the status of Indians over Sen. Howard's.

The rest of this paragraph seems to be somewhat misleading, in that Sens. Johnson and Trumbull supported Sen. Howard's wording with regard to whether it excluded certain classes of Native Americans or not. It was only in this context that all the quotes about the meaning of "jurisdiction" were made. Not one of them made any remarks concerning whether the US-born children of noncitizen immigrants (excepting diplomats and their families) would be excluded, and indeed when Sens. Coness and Cowan indicated that they understood this amendment to extend to such cases, no senator contradicted them.Gmalcolms (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Question: For the purposes of Congress ruling that illegal aliens are not "subject to American jurisdiction" -- could that potentially bring about unintended consequences? For example, if an illegal alien is not subject to American jurisdiction, would that impede the ability of law enforcement to tack action if an illegal alien violated some other criminal law (eg. murder)? Can a person be required to obey a law, if that law was enacted by a body that has openly rejected its own jurisdiction over that person? 24.222.2.222 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Response: It seems that you are confusing specific jurisdiction with general jurisdiction. Anyone on U.S. soil that, for example, commits a crime is subject to specific jurisdiction for that crime. However, a citizen of another country is typically not subject to the general jurisdiction of the U.S. (I am new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me for not yet knowing how to cite my comment.)
 * I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to relate to the civil law concept covered in the personal jurisdiction article and discussed a bit vs. general jurisdiction at
 * etc.
 * I don't see how this relates to nationality law. in specific. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * etc.
 * I don't see how this relates to nationality law. in specific. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this relates to nationality law. in specific. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You have done nice research; your linked sources more conclusively refute the contention, raised in the question posed, while proving my response to be incomplete. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.15.181 (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because no senator contradicted Sens. Coness and Cowan, such does not mean that their statements and views became the official view of the entire Senate or that of the U.S. Government when the Amendment was finally ratified. Without a specific motion, Sen. Howard's original proposal to exclude all aliens from citizenship would have stood.

As far as "subject to the jurisdiction" goes, it is clear that people today don't seem to understand what the phrase means, as demonstrated by the question above dated 25 Feb. 2011. It means complete jurisdiction e.g. the ability of a government to draft into military service, i.e. authority over its citizens. That is far different from the typical meaning in the nature of exercising control over territory, which one usually thinks of when considering the application of law, especially at the state and local levels. In today's world, such complete jurisdiction basically equates to having at least one citizen parent, thus giving the government a claim on the child as a citizen (unless otherwise excluded). 71.106.213.194 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Re ability to draft into military service as a measure of "subject to jurisdiction", under current law, in addition to male U.S. citizens, foreign males between the ages of 18 and 25 living in the United States must register for the draft. This includes permanent residents (holders of Green Cards), refugees, asylees, dual citizens, and illegal aliens.. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The compelling of conscription of non-citizens (not including dual- or poly-citizens) is not legal and is a violation of the very definition of citizenship (e.g. "duties of citizenship") and of the soverign rights of the country the person is a citizen of. In the converse case, this is what started the American-British War of 1812:  Britain was pressing U.S. citizens into its navy (even taking them off U.S. flagged ships to do so).  Some aliens (non-resident and diplomats) are specifically exempted, although it is my position that all aliens are exempt because it cannot be enforced (and would cause a war).  Other duties of citizenship include paying taxes (even when out of the country) and serving on juries.  Other rights include voting, holding government office, and getting a passport.  Aliens are not entitled nor required these additional things - and this is what differentiates a citizen from a resident alien. 71.106.211.51 (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that while you are free to place your analysis on the talk page, it only serves as part of the process for finding reliable sources for points we think should go into the article. Since almost everything about this topic is controversial, hardly anything should go into the article unless a reliable source for it is found first. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

More on 14th Amendment
I've just done some major work on the "Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution" section. I rearranged the items from Raoul Berger's book so they are all together. I wikilinked Thaddeus Stevens and briefly described him. I changed some peacock wording which made Berger's view sound like undisputed / indisputable settled truth. And I expanded the quoted material from Kermit Hall to show that he did, in fact, argue that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect not only the ex-slaves, but also their white allies. We need to be as neutral, and as inclusive of the diversity of verifiable mainstream views, as we can be here. People working on this article may also wish to participate in a related discussion at Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 16:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * An IP-anon and I have reached an impasse regarding the content of this section (see [ here] for an illustration). Constructive suggestions from other editors would be welcome at this point.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 23:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Berger certainly has a significant point of view, but it's in the minority. NPOV calls on us to include all significant points of view, with weight proportional to their prominence. It's my impression that this view has received little attention in the mainstream constitutional scholarship and media coverage. If that's right then his view should get a line towards the end of the section, not lengthy coverage at the beginning.   Will Beback    talk    00:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP-anon that you are dealing with has a shifting IP address -- most likely he/she is the same IP as User:74.192.7.135 who was blocked twice in April for this type of editing (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.192.7.135).  The user was advised of potential 3RR violations under that IP number. In any event, I agree with your edits and have reverted the current IP.  I agree with Will Beback as to the undue weight that is being given the opinion.


 * I'm not sure why the paragraph in question is even in this article. None of the quotes specifically mention "birthright citizenship" and general criticisms of the 14th Amendment are not really relevant here. I believe the entire paragraph should be eliminated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP-anon appears to have a new IP address now (74.192.42.102). He is continuing to revert — and the edit summary on his latest revert ("It would be nice if you would follow your own rules. Remember, discuss it before you make changes.") seems more applicable to his own misbehaviour than to our conduct.  I've reported the situation on WP:ANEW and left notices of this action on the talk pages of both recent IP addresses.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, I have added a rebuttal to Berger by Paul Finkelman. I still believe that the entire paragraph should be eliminated.  I checked JSTOR for reviews of the Berger work and most all question the depth of Berger's analysis of the historical facts.  Berger does have academic credentials but on the historical issue of the creation of the 14th Amendment he has a definite minority view. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I realize the current version of the section (see [ here]) is not intended to be the last word, but I do want to comment that, IMO, the current text still has significant POV problems. Some of the above may, of course, become moot if the consensus ends up being to remove or drastically whittle down the treatment of Berger's views. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 15:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Learned and reported" implies that Berger's view is settled fact (something not every one would agree with by any means), and this phrase's being part of a direct quote isn't enough to justify the way it's used here. And the sentence "The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to establish the civil rights, privileges and immunities of the freedmen only." needs to be more specifically qualified as being part of Berger's opinion and not a neutral statement of fact.
 * The lengthy block quote from Finkelman is too prominent as it currently stands, and it should IMO be either cut down or summarized.
 * Even though Wong Kim Ark is already mentioned in other places in this article, I believe it still needs to be mentioned in this section — and mentioned first — both in order to give a balanced presentation of the significant views on the subject (starting with the prevailing view), and also to provide context for the subsequent discussion of claims that the Supreme Court has been misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.


 * Here's the problem. The phrase "learned and reported" is obviously opinion and obviously needs to be cited as such -- in fact it is a quote by Forrest McDonald from the books intro and it is McDonald rather than Berger who should be referenced in the text.  Since the IP has apparently drawn a line in the sand over this issue, an issue that reasonable people familiar with Wikipedia policies CANNOT logically disagree about (see WP:RSOPINION), any attempt to reach a consensus agreement with him/her on any substantive issues will be difficult if not impossible.


 * Will Beback has suggested that the Berger paragraph should be reduced to a single sentence. While I disagree with giving it even that much attention (since nothing in the paragraph relates directly to birthright citizenship), that single sentence could be:


 * Legal Historian Raoul Berger believes that the Supreme Court has erred in its interpretation of the 14th Amendment by failing to determine the original intent of Congress and the states who ratified the amendment.


 * This could balanced with a few sentences summarized from the quote by Eric Foner which I added here to the 14th Amendment article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think some brief mention of Berger and/or others holding similar views would be appropriate here, since the question of whether the 14th Amendment mandates birthright citizenship for US-born children of illegal aliens is a live issue at present — and the position that it does not, though not mainstream, is widely enough held nowadays that it probably can't be casually dismissed as a fringe idea. But I agree that any mention of Berger et al. needs to be a modest summary comment — not the focal point of the section, and not presented as obvious fact — and any in-depth treatment of diverging views belongs in the Fourteenth Amendment's own article, not here.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 18:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and added McDonald as the initiator of the "learned and reported" sentence. I still don't see what Berger has actually said concerning BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP.  If he has said something, then we should add it. A general criticism of the SC's interpretation of 14th Amendment cases is not equivalent to any specific criticism of cases regarding birthright citizenship.  Has Berger criticized, for example, the Wong Kim Ark case? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Two liberal law professors disagree. Wow! Everything in life can be characterized as an opinion, so why not abolish Wikipedia as unworkable on that basis? Are all opinions equally believable? All all opinions accurate? Scholars support their arguments with evidence. Berger has has done this, but still you whine, because his perspective is in the "minority." If that is how we arrive at truth, then we are doomed. The truth is, his observations make you uncomfortable, but rather than admit it, you play games. I am wondering how many of you three have been trained in the law? I am also wondering why a Canadian resident is so concerned with legal scholarship on the Fourteenth Amendment? I am also wondering why Berger's observation is alleged to be a impermissible opinion, but Finkelman's alleged quotation, "Berger is wrong . . . it is a fact," is deemed a permissible fact? Looks like POV bias to me. Finkelman did not even use those words! Finally, I am wondering why the three of you work full time in a coordinated fashion? Isn't that a violation of the spirit of the Wikipedia rules, somewhat like sockpuppetry? Do you guys get paid to do this, or are your lives so pathetically empty that you troll these boards nitpicking well meaning contributions by others? Just wondering.74.192.46.84 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Finkelman very certainly did write what I said he wrote. Finkelman's opinion is also attributed to Finkelman. The problem with Berger's "learned and reported" sentence is that it was not attributed in the text to anybody until I added the reference to McDonald. The issue of minority opinions is described at WP:UNDUE which I've pointed out to you before.  Berger's presence in the wikipedia article should reflect the extent to which it is represented in relaible sources -- as such it is way overrepresented in the current text. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, North Shoreman, I never took issue with material contrary to Berger--except when it was blatantly erroneous. I only took issue with attempts to minimize Berger's claim. Unlike some, I believe in a BALANCED presentation of all viewpoints. Such balance is clearly lacking in your Southern Poverty Law Center Wikipage, for example. You and Beback love that page, don't you? If that is not a biased presentation, then I don't know what is. I see you instructed Looneymonkey to execute your temper tantrum this time. You guys are so transparent and predictable when you collude to force your views on everyone else. 74.192.46.84 (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Re UNDUE, I see that the Raoul Berger article says (in an apparent copypaste, and without citing a supporting source), "Berger unleashed a firestorm of controversy within the legal academy with his next book, Government by Judiciary." Figuring that a firestorm should have left some visible traces, I googled "Government by Judiciary" "raoul berger", and got over 35,000 hits. I see that the book review by Commentary magazine says, "PERHAPS no other legal scholar has in recent years received as much attention from the press as Raoul Berger." While I was googling around, I happened to notice that a 1932 book by Louis B. Boudin (A judicial scholar and a marxist, apparently) has the same title. I also noticed  Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I did a search on JSTOR for reviews of the book and came up with a dozen or so. Most of the reviews identified problems with Berger's analysis of the circumstances involving the debate and ratification of the 14th Amendment.  On the bigger issue of the SC and original intent Berger may be relevant, but on the specific material that was injected into this article Berger is awfully close to the fringe. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone has challenged my recent edit adding: "However, it is clear that not all citizens at birth, as well as naturalized citizens, qualify as 'natural born citizens.'"  Since a person can be a statutory citizen at birth by having only one citizen parent and be born outside the U.S., such a person is a citizen at birth (because Congress permits such), but would not be either a naturalized citizen nor a "natural born citizen." Even if born inside the U.S. of one citizen parent (thus a constitutional citizen under the 14th Amendment), the same is true - a citizen but neither naturalized nor "natural born." By definition, a naturalized citizen is someone who lacks citizenship at birth and acquires it later, and a "natural born citizen" is one born to a country (in the country or to its military while abroad) to parents both of whom are citizens. Therefore, it is quite possible to be a (statutory) citizen while being neither naturalized nor natural born. 71.106.211.51 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That conjectured definition of "natural born citizen" is not obvious and is not based on reliable sources. It can't be put in the article as a settled fact, because there is no consensus of reliable sources declaring it as such.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 23:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the only document in American governance that relies on the phrase "natural born citizen" is the Constitution, where it sets out the qualifications to be president. The only ways I can imagine for any interpretation to become a settled fact would be:
 * A person with a particular fact pattern surrounding his/her birth assumes the office of president and no challenge is made.
 * A person with a particular fact pattern surrounding his/her birth is elected by the Electoral College, but the House of Representatives rules he/she is ineligible
 * A person with a particular fact pattern surrounding his/her birth is elected and the election is confirmed by the House, but the election is challenged in the Supreme Court, and that court makes a ruling
 * The Constitution is amended in a manner that clarifies the issue.
 * Until one of these events happens, there will always be different opinions. Even if one of these events happens, there may be other fact patterns that are still unclear. Only opinions that are published in reliable sources should even be mentioned in Wikipedia, and a balanced article is bound to have several opinions that don't entirely agree with each other.Jc3s5h (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And further, this article (on birthright citizenship) is not really the place to go into great detail regarding the definition of "natural born citizen". There is another article (Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution) for that — and I do know that there has been a lot of discussion (and a fair amount of edit warring) on that page over this question.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 00:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Legal history" section of article
I changed the subsection title "Citizens Act of 1924" back to "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924". I was unable to find any reliable source for the title "Citizens Act of 1924" — all I could find were blog and wiki postings, most of which appeared to be quoting one another. If anyone can find a reliable source for the "Citizens Act of 1924" title, by all means feel free to change it back. I also included the actual text of the original act (not exactly the same as what the current law says), and I reworded the "codified in 8USCS 1401" comment (this same typo, BTW, appears in most of the blog posts which claim the "Citizens Act of 1924" title) to cite the current law more properly.

I see a major problem with the way the "Legal history" section currently mixes together actual laws on the one hand, and various (inherently non-binding) legal opinions on the other hand. In my view, the legal opinions should either be in a section of their own, or else removed entirely; and if they are retained, the collection of opinions needs to be balanced per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, and it needs to be made extremely clear when an opinion has been overruled by subsequent law or court decisions. It might be possible to combine everything ("Legal history" and "U.S. Supreme Court case law") into a single section, ordered chronologically, and being careful not to overemphasize minority views out of proportion to their significance. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 17:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)