Talk:Birthright citizenship in the United States

I have two questions regarding this entry:

1) When did it become a "U.S. tradition" that any child born to parents owing alligance to another country is an American citizen?

2) When did the United States choose to recognize Jus soli?

I am positive from my research that from 1791-1946 that allegiance to the Constitution is what defined American citizenship. Many of the the narrative stories of New York Italian, Irish and Polish immigrants from 1900-1930 speak of being born in NYC and gaining citizenship years later when their parents had become naturalized.

At least as far back as 1830, when the US Supreme Court decided Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour in City of New York, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830) which tried to settle whether a child born in NYC in approximately 1776 was a US citizen, or a British citizen. If John Inglis was born with New York City while it was under US control, then he was a US citizen, if on the other hand he was born while the city was under British control, then he was a British citizen. Unfortunately there was no proof as to when Inglis was born, and the court could not find enough evidence to decide one way or the other. His father was a staunch Royalist, and removed Inglis to England when the British Troops abandoned the city. It was determined that his father had made a choice for him, and that he as an adult had never done anything to counteract that choice, and had spent his adult life living as a British citizen, thus he could not very well claim US citizenship. Hope that helps. Brimba 02:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the answer to #1 is that national allegiances owed by either or both parents (to whatever extent those allegiances might be known or knowable with certainty) do not bear under current U.S. legal tradition on the question of whether or not a child has a valid claim to U.S. citizenship. Inglis does speak of parental allegiances, but that case involved a legal environment present within a critical timeframe during the U.S. revolutionary war. I think that the answer to #2 is July 9, 1868 -- the ratification date of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. -- Boracay Bill 03:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court said that jus soli in the U.S. had been inherited as part of English common law. The 14th Amendment entrenched jus soli but didn't start it. Richwales 05:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere under New York law (and a few other states) the state did not recognize citizenship by birth to non-resident aliens. That is most likely the cause of the narrative stories you mention. Considering that Montana and South Dakota adopted similar laws show Jus Soli was by no means the rule. LawPro (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed reversion of Revision as of 07:58, 9 February 2007

This revision added a block of text which had been moved from Illegal immigration to the United States into the Congressional actions section of this page. The added text is not a good fit with the writing style elsewhere on this page, does not relate well to the section where it was placed, in some places repeats points made elsewhere on the page, in some places seems to conflict with points made elsewhere on the page, and in some places seems to make points which are at least implicitly POV (IMO, of course - See the diffs here). Barring objection, I propose deletion of the text added by this revision. Comments? Objections? -- Boracay Bill

I'm particularly concerned about the portion of the new text which talks about whether U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark does or doesn't apply to US-born children of illegal aliens. Although some do admittedly argue that the Supreme Court majority in Wong Kim Ark went out of their way to highlight his parents' status as legal US residents and did not intend their ruling to apply to children of illegal immigrants, an argument can be made that the court majority was simply trying to make it clear that Wong's parents were not diplomats or any other sort of official representative of the Chinese emperor, but were simply ordinary people (and thus unquestionably subject to US jurisdiction). The Supreme Court's later ruling in Plyler v. Doe seems to reinforce this interpretation. If the block of text in question is kept, I would feel a need to rework this portion for NPOV. Richwales 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

I think this article needs a revision.

It makes hardly any mention of the denial of birthright citizenship to non-whites prior to the 14th amendment. The statement "Throughout the history of the United States, the fundamental legal principle governing citizenship has been that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers United States citizenship.", while a direct quote from a reputable source, is not really technically accurate as birth citizenship was denied to African slaves, as shown in the Dred Scott case. After the civil war, The 14th amendment was created to ensure that African-Americans, particularly freed slaves, received U.S. citizenship.

Good point. Quoting a bit from DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856):

It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.

In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the [60 U.S. 393, 406] rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

which probably makes legal sense, if not moral sense in light of today's sensibilities, especially in light of the 10th amendment in 1791 which had mandated: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Of course, the 14th amendment changed that in 1868 with: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That big change probably should be pointed up. -- Boracay Bill 13:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This article makes no mention of any of these concepts, instead focusing largely on today's hot-button topic of immigration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.210.192 (talk • contribs)

Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)

I have removed a sentence from the section Children born overseas out of wedlock
(1)The final element has proven especially unfortunate in these cirumstances, as once the child has reached 18,
(2)the father is forever unable to establish his son's paternity to deem his child a natural-born citizen.
The first part of the sentence fails POV and the second is in error. DNA tests can determine paternity within the bounds of reasonable doubt. They are used in U.S. courts regulary.-----Adimovk5 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, but it's not sufficient to satisfy the statute, as it has to be established prior to the 18th birthday. If DNA evidence is proffered after the child has turned 18, it won't cure the deficiency. Jkatzen (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit of first sentence

I had to edit the first sentence of this article, because it was getting a bit ridiculous and clearly not neutral. It previously read that under the "current" reading of the US Constitution, anyone "now" born in the US is automatically a citizen. While there's nothing in the sentence which is technically untrue, the use of the words "current" and "now" imply that this is a recent development, which is not the case at all. As the article points out, the 14th Amendment was ratified over 140 years ago, and the reading of it to include birthright citizenship has court precedent going back at least 100 years. Clearly the author of the sentence isn't happy about the fact, but if that's the case he or she can take it up with Congress and state legistlatures, because that's the way it is now. To phrase it the other way is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV rule. You may as well start off an article about President Bush saying "President Bush is not technically classified as a moron." Nothing untrue there, but clearly the sentence is trying to imply something.

- HowardWtalk 7:08pm, Dec 22, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 00:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Section on children born overseas is not relevant to this article

It would be better placed in a general article about US citizenship. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez

I question the relevance of the section mentioning U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, and I also question the claim that this case "clarified" the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Plyler v. Doe.

I think the editor is making too much of the "substantial connections with this country" phrase from the Verdugo-Urquidez opinion. Verdugo-Urquidez didn't have anything at all to do with the constitutional rights of aliens (legal or illegal) within the US; the case was about an alien who was arrested in Mexico and extradited to the US, who was challenging searches/seizures done in Mexico as being violations of the Fourth Amendment. The "substantial connections" verbiage was directed at the suggestion that Verdugo-Urquidez had supposedly gained the right to challenge those Mexican searches on US constitutional grounds because he had been extradited to the US (and was thus now in the US).

Verdugo-Urquidez cited Plyler, to be sure, but it did not "clarify," change, or overrule the holdings of Plyler in any way. Even if the Supreme Court's intent had been to overrule or modify the Plyler holdings, such comments in Verdugo-Urquidez — a case involving a totally different situation — would at best be obiter dicta. Richwales (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The specific statement which is in dispute is "those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212." Here, the court is explicitly stating that the only thing Plyler v Doe established was that "aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country". You question whether it is a clarification. What then would you call it?

You say, "Verdugo-Urquidez didn't have anything at all to do with the constitutional rights of aliens (legal or illegal) within the US" On the contrary, the case was about the rights of an alien in the U.S. (it only became a case after the alien entered the U.S.)

However, even if you were right (and I point out once again, that you're not, but just for the sake of the argument), I don't see its relevance. The court was specifically talking about Plyler (it wrote, "see, e.g. Plyler v. Doe") and other cases. Noone has suggested that Verdugo-Urquidez in any way changed or overruled the holdings of Plyler. What has been said is that Verdugo-Urquidez clarified the findings of Plyler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.153.110 (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing that's making me confused/unsettled here is that I don't understand what use you (or others) are proposing to make of the "have developed substantial connections" phrase in the context of an article about birthright citizenship. Do you believe this verbiage opens up the possibility of a situation in which a US-born child of illegal alien parents would not have US citizenship by birth if the parents had somehow not "developed substantial connections" with the US? I haven't seen any suggestion that this would be so — certainly nothing on point in Plyler (which dealt with children who were unquestionably not US citizens by birth, having been born to non-citizens outside the US) — nor in Verdugo-Urquidez (the whole point of which being that the person involved was indisputably and unquestionably not a US citizen).

The only use of the "substantial connections" idea which I saw in Verdugo-Urquidez was to make the point that Mr. Verdugo's having been brought to the US as an extradited prisoner was not enough of a US connection to endow him with Fourth Amendment protection against search/seizure activity performed in Mexico. I suppose this case, or the way you're proposing that it "clarified" Plyler v. Doe, might be applicable to the birthright citizenship debate if a pregnant female alien were extradited to the US, gave birth while in US custody, and the question of her child's right to US citizenship were to come up; but other than that, I'm afraid I don't see enough of a connection to hold water, and if you believe there is a connection (presumably something else that I've got a mental block about right now), then I think it needs to be made more explicit — all the while, of course, taking care to avoid violating WP:SYNTH. Richwales (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing that's making me confused/unsettled here is that I don't understand what use you (or others) are proposing to make of the "have developed substantial connections" phrase in the context of an article about birthright citizenship.

Until we have a reliable source which answers the question, "what does 'have developed substantial connections' mean in the context of birthright citizenship?", that's another irrelevant question.

Do you believe this verbiage opens up the possibility of a situation in which a US-born child of illegal alien parents would not have US citizenship by birth if the parents had somehow not "developed substantial connections" with the US? I haven't seen any suggestion that this would be so

Again, what I believe isn't relevant. What you believe isn't relevant either. What's relevant is what adheres to Wikipedia policy.

certainly nothing on point in Plyler (which dealt with children who were unquestionably not US citizens by birth, having been born to non-citizens outside the US) — nor in Verdugo-Urquidez (the whole point of which being that the person involved was indisputably and unquestionably not a US citizen).

Given as how the court was specifically talking about Plyler v Doe, the court did think it was on point.

I suppose this case, or the way you're proposing that it "clarified" Plyler v. Doe, might be applicable to the birthright citizenship debate if a pregnant female alien were extradited to the US, gave birth while in US custody, and the question of her child's right to US citizenship were to come up"

Verdugo-Urquidez was about about an alien in the U.S. and the rights he received within the U.S. given that he had not developed substantial connections with the U.S. Plyler was about aliens within the U.S. and the rights they received within the U.S. given that they had developed substantial connections with the U.S. The fact that we're discussing here is that the court clarified that Plyler v. Doe found that these constitutional rights apply only to aliens who are in the U.S. and have developed substantial connections with the U.S. Though, neither case answers the question as to what exactly "substantial connections" are, that's, again, irrelevant.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

75.179.153.110: You need to find a secondary source that backs up your contention that Verdugo-Urquidez is relevant here. If you can't, it should be removed from the article. A supreme court ruling is a primary source. See WP:PSTS: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Grover cleveland (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And until we have a reliable source of any sort addressing the question of what having "developed substantial connections" with the US might mean in the context of US birthright citizenship, there is really no justification (much less any Wikipedia policy mandate) for bringing up the phrase in this article. Just because the words exist in the Verdugo-Urquidez majority opinion is not, by itself, enough to justify an insistence that the phrase be cited in an article without any context showing it is relevant to the article's topic. At most, there might possibly be justification in mentioning the "substantial connections" issue, but with a cautionary note saying that its possible relevance to the birthright citizenship question remains unclear pending future rulings by the court. But given the very limited extent to which the court applied this concept in Verdugo-Urquidez — invoking it only to counter the suggestion that Mr. Verdugo had acquired as much Fourth Amendment protection as non-resident US citizens have by virtue of his having been brought onto US territory as an extradited prisoner — I would be very hesitant to consider the "substantial connections" phrase to have any sort of widespread application in the absence of some definite indication of its applicability (as illustrated by other Supreme Court decisions). That was why I asked my questions above, and why I (still) consider them relevant to whether or not this phrase belongs in this article. Richwales (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to avoid bias, all sources in the article must be examined to see if they withstand the justification given for removing Verdugo-Urquidez. Current justifications given for removing Verdugo-Urquidez (that the case wasn't about birthright citizenship, for example), when applied in an unbiased manner, will result in the removal of other content in the article (for example, INS v. Rios-Pineda and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld aren't specifically about birthright citizenship either). This is not to say that current justifications given for removing Verdugo-Urquidez are sufficient for removing it (I do not believe the Wikipedia community has reached a consensus on that yet, though I do admit that it seems to be obviously leaning more in one direction than another), This is only to point out that we must be consistent in our application of any justification we go with.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I would definitely support the removal of the sections on Rios-Pineda and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, as they currently stand, from the article. As 198.97.67.57 points out, they don't have any secondary sources supporting their relevance here, and neither case, on its face, is about birthright citizenship. (In addition, the sections hardly add anything to the article since the discussion is so brief.) This is not to say that they (or indeed Verdugo-Urquidez) should never be in the article, but that they should only be inserted when we have sources to justify their inclusion. Grover cleveland (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone please be aware that I've made a "request for comments" (RfC) on the Plyler v. Doe talk page, asking for outside input on whether or not citing U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez is appropriate on that page. Richwales (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Anchor Baby

"Anchor baby" is not synonymous with "US born child of alien parents". An "Anchor baby" is a child born of illegal aliens in the US with the intent to anchor those illegal aliens to the US. Parents of anchor babies are not awarded citizenship for having had that baby - they remain illegal aliens - they just get some form of unofficial protection from being deported. But, if those illegal aliens have other children within the US at a future date, those other children are not anchor babies - so, as I said, "anchor baby" is not synonymous with "US born children of alien parents". It appears that the only reason this precise term (ie. anchor baby) is being replaced with a less accurate terminology is that some people may find it offensive. I can not emphasize enough that an encyclopedia does not exist to reflect political correctness. Accuracy is a fundamental goal of an encyclopedia. While offending others is not a goal, until and unless terminology which is just as accurate and less offensive is offered, we must fall on the side of accuracy.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the use of "anchor baby", as long as it's wiki-linked to the article for such a term. One editor has been unilaterally removing it without consensus. I just haven't cared enough to get a discussion going about it. Jkatzen (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The term is highly POV and generally considered to be derogatory. And no, it is not more accurate because it is based on a premise that cannot be proven or disproven. Using the term in this context would be to push a specific POV that assumes the intentions of every illegal immigrant that gives birth. In the case of a dispute, it's better to use neutral language, not loaded terms. And finally, there is no reliable source for using the term in an encyclopedic article. You would never see it in a legitimate news source, why would we use it here? --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What is POV about it? Is the POV whether or not it is possible for illegal aliens to achieve some form of unofficial protection from being deported by having a child born in the US? What -specifically- is POV about that? What is the "premise that cannot be proven or disproven"?-198.97.67.57 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with your original premise. That the term is not synonymous with "US born children of alien parents." How do the terms differ? The only difference seems to be the point of view that everyone involved is intentionally culpable. It pushes the POV that these people are, as you put it, specifically trying to "achieve some form of unofficial protection from being deported by having a child born in the US." This is not demonstrated by reliable sources (and would be impossible to prove anyway as you would have to examine the specific intentions of every person. Better to simply describe the tangible actions and leave the speculation about intentions to the blog. And finally, there is no reliable source for using the term in an encyclopedic article. It would never appear in a news article, why would we use it here? Please don't edit war. Let's let this discussion play out and get some outside comments. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me see how clearly I can spell this out. The -first- child born in the US of illegal aliens grants to those aliens some unofficial protection against deportation. Additional children do not grant this protection (because the protection has already been granted). Therefore, there is a clear distinction between the -first- child born of illegal aliens in the US and all other children born of illegal aliens in the US. This unofficial protection granted by the -first- child is what gets it identified as an 'anchor baby' and any children past the first are not 'anchor babies'. Therefore, it is -not- true that an 'anchor baby' is any "US born children of alien parents". -75.179.153.110 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Your theory about it only applying to the first born is not mentioned in any references. Do you have a reliable third-party source for this or is it your own personal theory? Also, if true, then you should have no problem simply adding the phrase "first-born" to the neutral language, correct? --Loonymonkey (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing: regardless of whether it's pejorative or not, it's a term that's ever-present in the central debate, and it's used frequently. Addressing the term here is appropriate, even if for no other reason than its prevalence (see also 60,000 search results on Google for the term, and an article on Wikipedia already). I'll grant that many sources consider it pejorative, but that's one of characterization and nuance, as others disagree. Adding the qualifier "so-called" as I've done now should help make clear that this isn't necessarily a standard term, but one that is used by people coloring the debate one way or another. Jkatzen (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to find compromise, but here's the problem with that. Use of the phrase "so-called" is tendentious and that phrase is specifically discussed in WP:WTA. Essentially what you're trying to do is insert a term that pushes POV ("anchor baby") and then push the POV back the other direction with the term "so-called." That isn't neutral point of view, that's just two different non-neutral points of view in the same sentence (which should never be confused with "balance.") It is far better to simply use neutral language to begin with. Since you acknowledge that the term is not neutral (it is "one that is used by people coloring the debate one way or another") we should use language that is neutral. That is one of the most fundamental prinicipals of Wikipedia. As for google hits, that has nothing to do with the debate. We don't use google hit counts to determine what language to use. The term "wetback" would get as many hits or more, but would be equally inappropriate. --Loonymonkey (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that I necessarily "acknowledge" that it's not neutral. I merely grant that some people consider it not neutral . . . which doesn't mean that their characterization is absolutely true. I also acknowledge that it's heavily used in the debate over the subject and has been raised in news articles regarding that series of bills numerous times. In any debate, there are going to be terms that one side prefers over another (possibly because one side's terms may appear to presumptiously assume what the other side is seeking to disprove), but it doesn't mean they're invalid. And it especially doesn't mean that the reality on the ground (their usage) should be erased from existence. "So-called" here is actually a very legitimate qualifier: it shows that there is significant usage of the term in the debate, though its neutrality is questioned by some as well. From my own point of view, I'd never heard of the term (or the series of bills or the debate over the bill, to be honest) until I read this article. I feel much more informed for having been introduced to it and having been able to click on the term's wiki-link and read about it. Jkatzen (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also, if consensus truly builds to remove the term, I wouldn't fight it. But it seems, at least at this point, that you're the only one who's raised a problem with it, though it's been added back repeatedly. My involvement has usually only been after a series of reverts between you and other editors. I'd almost rather have this discussion sit here a while to see if anyone else contests the term, rather than listing it on some general Wikipedia request for comments, because, from my experience, that tends to attract a slew of thumpers-for-a-cause, who don't have a particular familiarity with a subject or involvement with an article. The result is that you get a million YESes and a million NOs and really are in no better position to gauge after it's over. Jkatzen (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like "anchor baby" either. I think it's derogatory and inherently POV. I could possibly live with "so-called 'anchor babies'" if others insist on using the term, but it strikes me as similar to saying "so-called 'n****rs'" in an article about racial discrimination. I would vastly prefer to use a more neutral expression. And I'm not impressed by hair-splitting over whether one is talking about an illegal immigrant couple's first vs. subsequent US-born child; I've never seen anything (except for discussion here) suggesting that that's a genuine consideration in the minds of people who oppose jus soli citizenship in the US. Richwales (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it's similar to saying "so called 'n****rs'", because that term, at least currently, isn't central to a debate. A better example might be for a hypothetical anti-abortion act, where it sometimes is referred to, in the media, etc., as a "pro-life bill". It would warrant stating in the article that it is the "so-called pro-life bill". The term has some weight behind it, but could a very present element of a debate. In the instant case, I've seen a number of sources refer to the congressional action as "the anchor-baby bill." Jkatzen (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You all are missing the fact that Wikipedia isn't about adding only content you like. It is about writing content that adheres to policy. With that in mind, I'm waiting for any of you to describe what exactly is POV about the term "anchor baby". You are dancing around doing so and the fact that you are dancing around speaks very poorly for the strength of the point you are trying to make.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The POV aspect has already been explained to you several times. Please go back and read this discussion from the beginning again. Perhaps you missed those arguments as you never responded to any of them directly. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What has been said about this term is that "I think it's derogatory and inherently POV", "what you're trying to do is insert a term that pushes POV", "The term is highly POV" and the like. These are all assertions that the term is POV - but that's all they are, assertions. Further, such assertioins are inherently POV themselves. What you are aggressively resisting providing is a description of what exactly is POV about the term. You are dancing around doing so and the fact that you are dancing around speaks very poorly for the strength of the point you are trying to make.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, please go through and read this discussion again, particularly the very valid points and arguments that you still haven't responded to. I really shouldn't need to quote myself from within the same discussion, but here goes. The term pushes the specific "point of view that everyone involved is intentionally culpable. It pushes the POV that these people are, as you put it, specifically trying to "achieve some form of unofficial protection from being deported by having a child born in the US." This is not demonstrated by reliable sources (and would be impossible to prove anyway as you would have to examine the specific intentions of every person. Better to simply describe the tangible actions and leave the speculation about intentions to the blogs." Also, you still haven't provided a single reliable source for your claim that this term only applies to the first-born child of illegal immigrants. Do you have one or is this your own personal theory? --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you haven't made any valid points, yet, let alone "very valid points". I'll let you know when you have since you seem to be having trouble determining what a very valid point might look like. The quote you made, for example, is a case in point. You assert that the term pushes a specific point of view that everyone involved in intentionally culpable, yet you fail to discuss how that point of view is allegedly being pushed in this case. You just make assertions - assertions which reflect a POV (that POV being that political correctness is more important than accuracy). I mean, you haven't provided a single reliable source for your claim that this term applies to all US born children of illegal aliens. Do you have one or is this your own personal theory?-198.97.67.58 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since you can't refute any of those points (rather, just hurl insults) it's obvious that you don't really have a thought-out rationale for why the term is NPOV as you claim. I pointed out the POV in the term and, rather that counter argue, you simply bluster about political correctness. And, once again, you still cannot provide a reliable source for your claim that it only applies to first-born children so it's pretty obvious that you simply made that part up. I'm going to take this to an RfC as it's clear you aren't very interested in discussion or consensus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't we just let this sit for a while? An RfC is just going to stir up muck among people with a bone to pick. Jkatzen (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you said below, the four of us have said all we can say on the subject (and I would add that only three of us are even attempting to discuss this). Clearly one editor is more interested in disrupting wikipedia in order to make a point than reaching consensus and will almost certainly edit war if changes to the article are made so we need to achieve consensus on our own. The only way to do that is through the involvement of a few ouside editors (at which point any edit-warring can be dealt with through administrative means). I'll probably submit the request tomorrow.--Loonymonkey (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Once more, because you seem to have missed it the last time, you haven't -made- any 'points', just assertions. So, there's nothing to refute. And, once again, you still cannot provide a reliable source for your claim that it represents all U.S. born children so it's pretty obvous that you simply made that up.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I never made any such claim, of course. Perhaps you should go back and read through this thread again. You, however, did claim that it only applies to first-born children, a claim for which you can't find a single source. But hey, prove me wrong. Show us a couple of reliable sources to support your claim. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "Anchor baby" article says the term has been characterized as derogatory / pejorative. And that same article also defines the term without giving any indication that its proper use is restricted to apply only to a firstborn child of illegal immigrants. Richwales (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that focusing on some purported distinction as to whether it's first-born or not is either irrelevant or minutae. The question, to me, is whether the term--which is offensive to some but ever-present in the debate--has a place in a reference to the debate. Let's let this sit a while to get more thoughts on it, as the four of us have said all we can, I believe. Jkatzen (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Having stepped away from this for a couple of days, I'd like to return from a different perspective. Before we decide whether or not anchor baby should be used in this discussion, let's agree on what is and what is not a valid way of discussing the question.

These are arguements that I do not consider legitimate and which I believe do not have any role to play in whether the term should be used. 1.) Is it offensive? Note that this is not a question of whether or not it is offensive, but rather whether or not the question of whether it is offensive has any place in whether or not the term should be used (as I said, I'm focusing on how the debate should be resolved, not on resolving the debate - because the actual debate is too energized right now) My answer? I can find no Wikipedia policy which instructs us as to whether we can use terms which some people consider offensive. Further, Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should not be censored based on whether or not someone considers something offensive (if it were so censored, a great deal of the content in this encyclopedia from evolution to white power to homosexuality would have to be removed). 2.) Is it POV? The question of whether or not it is POV is relevant to the discussion (but everyone should read the actual policy on POV - "not POV" is not synonymous with "not offensive to anyone", but rather, "not POV" means the article is "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). 3.) Is the term synonymous with some other term? This question is not relevant to the question of whether the term should be used. However, should we decide that the term shouldn't be used, this question needs to be asked when looking for a replacement-198.97.67.58 (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that offensiveness of a term or availability of an alternative should not be a consideration. I'm not saying that we need to avoid all terms that anyone might find offensive. However, if there is an honest choice available between a "charged" term and a reasonably equivalent, non-charged term, I think it's appropriate to go with the latter. In this case, "U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants or other non-citizens" — or perhaps simply "U.S.-born children of non-citizens" — seems to me to be fine, and I would prefer one of these expressions. Richwales (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You write, "I'm not saying that we need to avoid all terms that anyone might find offensive." This seems to indicate that you are saying that we need to avoid all terms that some particular group(s) might find offensive." By what criteria do you want those particular group(s) identified so that they might be so empowered? What does 'honest' mean in this context and by what criteria do we determine whether a choice is honest or not?

Please reference relevant Wikipedia policy to support the answers you give. Failure to reference relevant policy will be taken to mean that you know of no relevant Wikipedia policy which supports the answers you are giving.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

While you're demanding links from others, we're still waiting for you to provide a single reliable source that supports you claim that the term only applies to the first born child of illegal aliens. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Could we please back off a bit on the "lawful neutral" rhetoric? I really don't think it's helpful from the standpoint of our trying to reach a consensus.

Since only one of the sources currently given in the article for the comment about "so-called 'anchor babies'" actually uses the expression "anchor babies" — and since (as far as I know) none of the proposed legislation on the subject in Congress uses the term — I think it would be much more appropriate to use something closer to what the various bills say, such as "U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants".

Also, AFAIK, none of the bills introduced in Congress from time to time on this subject have made any attempt to distinguish between a child who is the first to be born in the US to illegal aliens and subsequent US-born children of the same parent(s). Again, without some independent source narrowing down the definition of "anchor baby" to encompass only the firstborn, I'm not satisfied that we should accept this point as a distinction in meaning between "anchor baby" and something like "U.S.-born child of illegal immigrants".

Finally, I'm still worried that the standard you're putting forth to justify the use of "so-called 'anchor babies'" in this article — namely, that we can't shun a term simply because it offends some people — could just as validly justify the use of "so-called 'n****rs'" in an article about racial discrimination in the American South. I'm not trying to ridicule your position via reductio ad absurdum, but I would like to understand what sort of difference (if any) you see between these two cases. Richwales (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Richwales said, "Could we please back off a bit on the "lawful neutral" rhetoric? I really don't think it's helpful from the standpoint of our trying to reach a consensus". First, what does lawful neutral mean in this context? Second, what specifically in the history of this discussion makes you think that the way we were discussing the issue previously was going to lead to a resolution?

"since (as far as I know) none of the proposed legislation on the subject in Congress uses the term"

"Since only one of the sources currently given in the article for the comment about 'so-called 'anchor babies' actually uses the expression 'anchor babies'"

This is not true. Border baby boom strains S. Texas _Houston Chronicle_ uses the term border baby, but Born In the USA _San Diego Union-Tribune_ and Rep. Gayle Harrell says immigration is 'No. 1 issue' _Fort-Pierce Tribune_ both use the term Anchor baby. As an aside, would you prefer the term that the Houston Chronicle uses - Border baby - over Anchor baby? I don't much care for it as it implies (in this context) that the only people having anchor babies are EWIs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.59 (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the terms that Congress uses have a place, probably even a major place, in our decision. However, "as far as I know" has no place here. You need to reference the actual proposed legislation and point out what terms it is using.

"I would like to understand what sort of difference (if any) you see between these two cases." No difference. There must be no difference, else we're not creating an objective document but one based on political whim. This is not a reductio ad absurdum, but rather standing up for Integrity.

BTW, all three of the articles use the term "anchor baby" -- you just need to read the full-text of the "Border baby" article to see it there. Jkatzen (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Loonymonkey said, " never made any such claim, of course", but, in fact, he did. He made that claim implicitly by replacing Anchor baby with U.S. born children of illegal immigrants and, now, having made that assertion, he needs to be honest about it.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just being absurd. How is that edit the same as making the claim that the term has anything to do with whether a child is first-born or not. In fact, you made such a claim after I made that edit. Go back and read through this thread again if you've forgotten the details. I didn't read your mind and know that you were going to make a false claim and then make an edit to refute it.

Let's go back to square one. "U.S.-born child of illegal immigrants" seems to be the most accurate and NPOV term to use so what is your objection to it specifically? Your previous objection (your claim that it was inaccurate because it doesn't distinguish first-born or not) has been proven wrong. It's pretty clear that you made it up and if you could find a reliable source for that, you would have provided it by now. So absent that claim, what is your objection to the term. Please be specific and try not to answer by simply asking a bunch of questions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is heading into a direct confrontation between editors on issues other than content. I insinuated that Looneymonkey wasn't being honest. He claims that I'm being absurd. This is non productive. Let's back up a bit here and try to focus on something a bit more productive.

Looneymonkey, in your opinion, how is replacing one set of words with another not implicitly saying that those two sets of words are synonymous? ""U.S.-born child of illegal immigrants" seems to be the most accurate and NPOV term to use so what is your objection to it specifically? Your previous objection (your claim that it was inaccurate because it doesn't distinguish first-born or not) has been proven wrong." First, no it hasn't. Second, this is exactly the kind of debate that we were locked in previously. So, I'll ask you the same question I asked Richwales. What specifically about the earlier manner in which we were arguing has led you to believe that it will lead to resolution on this issue?-198.97.67.59 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, even more so, as I stated earlier, the question of whether the term is synonymous with another term or which terms it is synonymous with is irrelevant in deciding whether or not the term should stay (because if the term can stay, then it doesn't matter whether there are other terms that are synonymous - it is only if we decide that the term can't stay that we need to decide what it can be replaced with). That being the case, this whole branch of this discussion is currently irrelevant.-198.97.67.59 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the "anchor baby" article flags the term as derogatory and pejorative should suggest to a reasonable editor that use of the expression is likely to violate NPOV. Even with mitigation via the "so-called" qualifier, such a term shouldn't be used if a more neutral alternative is available and there isn't any compelling reason to use a POV expression.

I pointed out before that Wikipedia does not define 'POV' as 'not offensive to anyone', rather it defines 'POV' means that the article is not "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Explain specifically how you feel that use of the term Anchor baby results in an article which does not represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My earlier reference to "lawful neutral rhetoric" was basically a plea to avoid the kind of obsessive hyperfocussing on rules that leads to wikilawyering. Sorry if you weren't familiar with this expression or didn't understand the reference. Richwales (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"My earlier reference to "lawful neutral rhetoric" was basically a plea to avoid the kind of obsessive hyperfocussing on rules that leads to wikilawyering."

So, instead of using objective criteria and integrity to determine what should be in a Wikipedia article, you believe we should focus on using what exactly?-198.97.67.59 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple of useful quotes from the WP:LAWYER article you referenced earlier, "In any case an accusation in wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering, and the term "wikilawyering" is used as a mere shortcut to these explanations" - so, while you've not accussed me of wikilawyering, merely insinuated that I've been doing so, before you get to the point of making such an accusation, you should be prepared to give an explanation as to why particular actions I've engaged in may be described as wikilawyering. "simply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer" and what ever explanation you give must be more substantial than that I've been a stickler for the rules. You should also remember that accusations of wikilawyering are uncivil.-198.97.67.56 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a RfC on this topic (see below) in an effort to solicit outside input. With respect, and without any desire to be uncivil, I feel that you have been making arguments here which are based on unreasonably narrow and overliteral interpretations of Wikipedia principles. I'm not sure how to articulate my feelings precisely, but I don't believe that means my position is wholly without merit. I hope the RfC will bring some more seasoned editors into the discussion and that we all (myself included) will be able to come away with a better understanding of how to contribute constructively. Richwales (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just getting ready to do the same. This is clearly just going in circles and these demands that we first "argue what should be argued" seem designed simply to completely obfuscate the issue and wear everyone down. It's time to let the larger community of experienced editors weigh in and accept the consensus that develops from that discussion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Richwales, you've chosen to throw a term at me which is uncivil and disrespectful. The fact that the term is uncivil has been pointed out to you, yet you insist on using it. To now say, "without any desire to be uncivil" doesn't mask the fact that you are knowingly insisting on being uncivil. The fact that you are also "not sure how to articulate my feelings precisely" is just rhetoric, you are expressing your feelings very precisely. What you are unable to do is articulate precisely how I'm wikilawyering other than to point out that I'm being a stickler for policy, guidelines, and process (something which was also pointed out to you not to be wikilawyering).

If you truly do not desire to be uncivil, then you should apologize and, in the future, choose your words more carefully - especially when you are unable or unwilling to back those words up.-198.97.67.58 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, do we need a law to close this "anchor baby" loophole, or what? US welfare services (Medicaid, etc.) are becoming so deluged with hospital bills that these parents can't pay for these kids that free clinics are shutting down all over the West at a far more rapid rate than in the past. Illegal aliens use almost 10 times in government services what they put back into the system in taxes and this country's wealth is not so profligate that we can take this slow bleed forever. Outlaw the anchor babies. Seal the border. Prosecute US businesses that knowingly employ illegals, driving down wages for actual US citizens. Bush, McCain, Obama, Pelosi have all failed us repeatedly on this issue. Who the Hell will stand up and fight for AMERICANS in America?

-TROY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.175.249 (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC regarding appropriateness of "anchor babies" in this article

Template:RFCpol We've been unable to reach a consensus as to whether the term "anchor babies" (or "so-called 'anchor babies'") belongs in the article, as opposed to an expression such as "U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants", and regarding which specific or general Wikipedia principles might apply here. See the above "Anchor Baby" section of this talk page. Richwales (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The passage in question is:

Some legislators, unsure whether an act of Congress regarding the citizenship status of so-called "anchor babies"would survive court challenges, have proposed that the Citizenship Clause be changed through a constitutional amendment. House Joint Resolution 46 in the 109th Congress proposed such an amendment; however, neither this, nor any other proposed amendment, has yet been approved by Congress for ratification by the states.

The question is whether we should use "anchor babies," "so-called anchor babies" or ""U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants" in the above paragraph (and in future similar references. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Use Anchor baby

• the term is what is used by the sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.58 (talk • contribs)
• the term is in common use (having over 60,000 Google hits) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.58 (talk • contribs)
• while some consider the term offensive, if Wikipedia uses whether some consider something "offensive" as a measure of whether to include content, many articles, from evolution to homosexuality to white power would have to be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.58 (talk • contribs)

Don't use Anchor baby

• while "offensive" should not factor into whether content is added to Wikipedia, illegal aliens are a special case - we should avoid risk of offense where illegal aliens are involved-13:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.67.58 (talk • contribs)

• Note that all of the above opinions including the "don't use" argument were added by 198.97.67.58. Let's have this discussion in regular RfC format, okay? That means bulleted comments (comments that you actually believe in, not strawman arguments that you disagree with) and signed posts. At this point we really need to hear from uninvolved editors. Thank you. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note, all RfCs I've ever seen summarize the issue under concern - they don't just pont to a long, unstructured thread of background info. Providing a list of pros and cons for the different sides is a very common structured format to achieve this summary. Both pros and cons should be listed in a neutral manner as I've attempted to do so. Ordinarily, the actual RfC format is agreed upon by the people working on the issue before it is submitted (but that wasn't done here). Now, to prevent stacking the deck, to make it easier for editors replying to the RfC to see what the issues relevant to the discussion, I've had to go back and rewrite the RfC and the only mechanism I've had for doing so is appending to the RfC.

As for signed posts, I wasn't making a reply to the RfC, I was trying to write it in the manner I've seen most RfCs written. So, no signed posts. If you care to rewrite the RfC in the way that it is commonly done, please do so. Thank you. -198.97.67.58 (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you did so in a very disruptive and unnecessary manner by using a false strawman argument to "summarize" the other side. Read through the entire thread above and you'll see that not one person used the rationale that "illegal aliens are a special case - we should avoid risk of offense where illegal aliens are involved." You simply made that up, which is rather dishonest. There is no need to attribute false arguments to others, let's let the discussion play out. This is exactly the sort of behavior that created the need for this RfC in the first place. Let's try to avoid such shenanigans and let others weigh in okay? Thanks --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

First, you need to stop splitting up other peoples' posts. It makes it really difficult to follow the discussion.

Secondly, this demonstrates why we should have discussed the RfC before it was posted. When I read back through the thread, I see, Richwales acknowledging that we shouldn't avoid words, generally speaking, just because somebody thinks those words are offensive (Richwales (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)), but he also says that we should not use Anchor baby because some people consider it offensive (Richwales (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)). If I've misunderstood him, well, I've tried since the beginning of this thread to get both of you to actually make a clear argument rather than just dance around and avoid doing so. So far, you've refused to do so.-198.97.67.57 (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not had internet access during this past week, and will likely not have access during the next week, so for the moment I will simply express my shock and dissapointment that we are actually engaged in discussing whether or not to indulge in gratuitous name-calling in a wikipedia article. While it is appropriate for wikipedia to have entries on pejorative terms such as Wetback and Anchor baby, it does not follow that articles such as this one should indulge in the gratuitous hurling of such epithets in a context where the discussion of the terms themselves is not the issue. What exactly is the pressing need to be offensive? --Ramsey2006 (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have the completely opposite perspective. I'm full of shock and disappointment with the idea that something meant for educational purpose (an encyclopedia) is expected to abstain from content simply because somebody might consider it offensive. What is lost, I think, is necessarily reflection before rushing to call something one doesn't like "gratuitous". It chills me that one day the very same argument you make here in your rush to censor content will be used against "gay", for example, because such a term offends others as well. As has been pointed out before, we do not get to pick and choose who it is okay to offend - not if we wish to lay claim to writing with integrity.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. My head is spinning. I see three different anonymous IP editors here participating in this RfC. Are 198.97.67.57, 75.179.153.110 and 198.97.67.58 three different wikipedia editors who are agreeing with and reinforcing each other in this RfC, or are all three simply the same anonymous editor using different IPs? I'm starting to feel outnumbered.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As best we've been able to tell, these are all one editor, using dynamic IP addresses in two different networks (possibly one network at work and another at home). He/she has been operating in this fashion for some time. He/she has been asked many times to please consider setting up an account, but he/she apparently wishes (for private personal reasons) to remain an outsider of sorts. While this is definitely not the ideal situation — and I, for one, would much rather see him/her play by the accepted customary practices — my understanding is that this sort of behaviour is not strictly a violation of Wikipedia's rules as long as he/she doesn't use multiple IP addresses for deceptive purposes (such as for sockpuppetry, or to evade 3RR or sanctions).

There has been some speculation that this anonymous editor may very possibly be the same person as the owner of the (apparently inactive) account Psychohistorian. I don't know if that's the case, and frankly, I don't really care. Unless and until he/she does something to bring down the wrath of the admins, I'm content to just let him/her keep on using IP addresses (in lieu of an account), and for his/her edits and talk-page comments to stand or fall on their own merits without regard for whether or not I approve of his/her online manner. Richwales (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice you misdirected the conversation instead of responding to the point. I'll ask you again. Do you believe that things such as "gay", "evolution", and "anchor baby" should be avoided because they risk offending somebody or do you just believe that we should make a special case exception with regard to risking offending illegal aliens? I find it remarkable that everyone of you who make the "it's offensive" argument immediately start dancing around when asked this question.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Use "Anchor babies" - call a spade a spade, don't bow to political correctness. The controversy regarding the term is described on that page. - Schrandit (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid "so called". Replace with " what some have termed as" and show who those are that have used the term by the links. I don't like "so called".-Die4Dixie (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie's suggestion is against Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words-75.179.153.110 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)