Talk:Americans

Puerto Rico should be included

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

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

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

MENA section

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

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

So with it not being used by USCB, do we exclude it in the article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

As there were no objects, I have removed the section. The current list of races and ethnicity are those recognized and utilized by the United States Census Bureau. To include a categorization not used by the USCB would be outside of previous norms for this article, although consensus can change. I admit that this removal was done boldly, and I am more than willing to reverse myself if there is consensus to keep the non-USCB ethnicity/grouping.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hmains: The next census, in 2020, wont include the MENA ethnicity, as linked above, and as reported in Newsweek.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it is too soon, until it is utilized in a census.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• this article and others in WP are not controlled by what is in the census anyway and should never be so. Is this a significant group of Americans? Yes. It belongs in this article. Hmains (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

What other categorization not utilized by the USCB should also be included in the opinion of Hmains?

Why is it that we have so far used the USCB categorization for race and ethnicity, and why does it appear that there has been past practice to only include those categorizations?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Nationals

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

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

Introductory sentence should state: Americans are nationals and citizens of the United States

Can we please revert this article to my version. [1] It currently begins with "Americans are citizens of the United States of America." This is obviously a dishonest sentence, attempting to cover up a material fact. It is manifestly contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which was originally enacted in 1952 by the U.S. Congress. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22) ("The term 'national of the United States' means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.") (emphasis added); Jaen v. Sessions, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 17-1512, p.8 (2d Cir. Aug. 13, 2018) (case involving a U.S. citizen in removal proceedings); Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 2012) (same); Ricketts v. Attorney General of the United States, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 16-3182, p.5 note 3 (3d Cir. July 30, 2018) ("Citizenship and nationality are not synonymous. While all citizens are nationals, not all nationals are citizens."); Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300, 305-06 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (case involving a non-citizen national of the United States); Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 782 F.3d 9, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ("The sole such statutory provision that presently confers United States nationality upon non-citizens is 8 U.S.C. § 1408."); Matter of Navas-Acosta, 23 I&N Dec. 586, 587 (BIA 2003); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1501–1504; 8 U.S.C. § 1436; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(23). "Persons not born in the United States acquire [American citizenship or American nationality] by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 423-24 (1998). These cases are directly on point and there are no contentions between the parties. A "national of the United States" ("American national") who resided continuously inside the United States for decades and who cannot be deported under any circumstances, and who the U.S. Attorney General refuses to approve his or her application for naturalization, cannot be an "American"? If such person is not an American then what is he or she? What about an illegal alien, who wants to commit terrorism in the United States, and who obtained by fraud a U.S. birth certificate, U.S. citizenship, U.S. passport, etc. Is such person an American? I cited here the U.S. Congress, who represents all Americans, the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. courts of appeals, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and they're all in agreement with my above proposition. This article should rely more on Acts of Congress and U.S. Supreme Court precedents.--Libracarol (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

IMO, WP:DUE comes into play here.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

A footnote to that says, "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered."; learned arguments by WP editors matter not one whit. If there is a difference of viewpoint in prominent RSs, both viewpoints should be described and supported. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you trying to say there's someone on earth who disagrees with "Americans are nationals of the United States"? In your opinion, the 54,343 American Samoans are not Americans? See "Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law"; 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–249; United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 264 (1997) ("Section 242 is a Reconstruction Era civil rights statute making it criminal to act (1) 'willfully' and (2) under color of law (3) to deprive a person of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."); United States v. Acosta, 470 F.3d 132, 136 (2d Cir. 2006); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1503; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1985; Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ___ (2017); Lyttle v. United States, 867 F.Supp.2d 1256, 1269 (M.D. Ga. 2012) (case of a U.S.-born citizen deported by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the government was forced to give the deported person about $175,000 in compensation). [2]--Libracarol (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to try to decode and respond in detail to your argument above. It seems, though, to rely on the validity of your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY sources, and WP prefers reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. One place where I fault the above is in the quote you give as ""Persons not born in the United States acquire [American citizenship or American nationality] by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.". The text quoted is given in [3] as "Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." Does "Americans are nationals of the United States" imply "Nationals of the United States are Americans"? Are the people of American Samoa classified as Americans? My guess is that some say yes and some say no. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

U.S. federal statutes and federal court precedents qualify as both WP:PRIMARY sources and as WP:SECONDARY sources, see, e.g., Federal Reporter, see also United States Government Publishing Office. One federal statute is for U.S. citizens [4] and another is explicitly for U.S. nationals. [5] As such, my above emphasis is not faulty. It is common knowledge that all "nationals of the United States" are statutorily Americans, see, e.g., [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], which means they cannot be deprived of that status or deported under any circumstances. [11] American Samoans have official U.S. documents (U.S.-issued certificates, passports, ID cards, etc.). [12] [13] Name just one person who claims that "nationals of the United States" (e.g., American Samoans) are not Americans.--Libracarol (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)