Talk:Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha

Redirects needed:

 * Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
 * 462 U.S. 919
 * 462 US 919

Done. BD2412 T 15:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Facts
Some more background perhaps? For example, where did he spend most of his life before he became a foreign exchange student (I guess Kenya but who knows?)? When did he become a foreign exchange student (i.e. at what age did he go to the US) and how long was he there? Perhaps OT but it might be worth mentioning whether he is still in the US or left. Maybe also mention of why he wasn't accepted in Kenya or India (if he was born in Kenya and spent most of his eaerly life there I find it strange that he was not accepted unless his parents were there illegally perhaps, similarly if he was born to Indian parents and spent most of his early life in India, I find it straneg India did not accept him) Nil Einne 14:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It was fairly common for people of Indian descent born and raised in ex-British colonies other than India to become stateless persons after those colonies became independent. Basically, before Kenya was independent everyone there would have been a British subject; after independence, it was free to define its citizenship laws as it saw fit, and in many African countries refused to recongize those not of African descent as citizens even if their family had lived there for multiple generations.  India, as a relatively poor country, probably at that time did not accept immigrants without means, even stateless persons of Indian descent.  This is actually not uncommon in the world: Chinese and Indian diaspora populations are not held to be citizens in many Asian and Pacific nations, and Palestinians are often not viewed as citizens by the Arab countries in which they live, even if they have generations of roots in the country in question.  The U.S.'s practice, in which everyone born here is a citizen by right of birth, is the exception rather than the rule.


 * What I'm most curious about is where exactly the INS and Congress proposed to deport Chandha to. The article says he held a British passport, so he was probably a British Overseas citizen, which would mean that, despite holding a form of British citizenship, he didn't automatically have the right to live in the UK.  --Jfruh (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * here's some interesting background. he was our downstairs neighbor as a student at Cal in the early 1970s and babysat me almost every year from age zero through 3. He's a little league coach in Albany now. --moehong  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.49.204 (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

When did this occur?
This should be in the introduction........... Bsd987 as anonymous user 65.254.4.231 15:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Many recent presidential signing statements reference this case
A ton of President George W. Bush's signing statements cite this case; see here:. Would this be a good item to add to the article? I'm afraid I don't personally understand why the signing statements repeatedly cite this case, but I'd love to know more. --Takeel 18:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I understand why this case is cited now. I would like to add something to the signing statements article about it for the community's review in the near future. --Takeel 14:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't find the correct citations to support my suspicion, so I can't do this. --Takeel 12:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work
This is a good lay out for the SC cases. It does a great job of accurately and concisely laying out the case. I appreciate the quality of this article.
 * I must concur, it is at least an A quality if not better. Compared to other SCOTUS articles, it is easier to find the most important aspects of the case here. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This Wikibrief sets a standard to which all the other case briefs on wiki should be judged.--Engender (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Re-assessment
I came here to look at the article based on the notices at WP:SCOTUS and WP:LAW that the article was ready for a GAN. Unfortunately, the article is not only not ready for a GAN, it was assessed too high on the quality standards. First, not all facts asserted are cited, a general guide for B class is that every section is cited to a reference. Second, important details are omitted or lacking in detail, such as the lower court cite (___ F.2d ___), the section of the U.S. Const. that was applicible, the opinion is not in preferred format (see WP:SCOTUS - case outline, subsequent developments covers nothing in the law, etc. I re-assessed a C-class.  It needs considerably more work to move to GA glass.    GregJackP    Boomer!  10:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)