From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Puerto Rico should be included[edit]

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 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Second sentence of the lead[edit]

The second sentence of the lead currently reads

Although nationals and citizens make up the majority of Americans, dual citizens, expatriates, and certain permanent residents, may also claim an American identity.

To me, this seems confusing and garbled. It divides Americans and those who may claim American identity into two groups: (1) nationals and citizens and (2) dual citizens, expats, and certain permanent residents. However,

  • one of the citizenships held by the dual citizens in the second group to would presumably be US citizenship; if that is the case, as US citizens they belong in the first group.
  • the term expats is vague as used here. If it refers to US citizens who are expatriated to another country, as US citizens those belong in the first group; if i refers to non-US citizens who are expatriated to the US, wouldn't those be the permanent residents mentioned separately in the second group?

I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is trying to say that some (but not all) among these three groups may claim American identity, but obviously only the U.S. government can decide that and on a case-by-case analysis. Children (aliens) born outside the U.S. are entitled to American nationality "after" proven by "clear and convincing evidence" that at least one of their parents is either an American national or an American citizen. [1]--Libracarol (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I will slightly modify the second sentence in the introduction paragraph based on 8 U.S.C. § 1481, particularly 8 U.S.C. § 1481(b). It basically says that the U.S. government can at any time open a case against any duel-citizen and any expat in order to strip such person of citizenship or nationality.--Libracarol (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)



Please, take a look on the third picture (from the bottom to the top of the page), where you see the two maps. The first map says "para onde vão os brasileiros" (where do brazilians goes), and the second one says "de onde vêm os estrangeiros" (where do the foreign population come), there you can see that 90K americans were living in Brazil by the 2017. THE SOURCE OF THE MAP IS THE UNITED NATIONS. B777-300ER (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I read the translation, it doesn't say what the above editor claims what it says.
Moreover, the organization which does the Census of Brazil, counts a far smaller number than 90k, more like 51.9k.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 08:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

US national vs. US citizen[edit]

I was redirected to this article from the article on American Samoa which states that "Samoans are American nationals but not American citizens". I couldn't understand, so I came here. This article however does not explain it, nor even touch such an issue what it means to be "an American nationals but not an American citizen", when or how it is possible. It only states that Americans are nationals and citizens of the USA". Shouldn't this be corrected by someone - here or there, or yet elsewhere? noychoH (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:REFD
Not really interested. Mine was a suggestion to those who work on THIS article.
As for the difference between Nationals and Citizens, please see the article United States nationality law, and the appropriate section about Nationals.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 08:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, I've finally found it by myself, yet I was thinking first of all about THIS article. All the best. (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Links to the relevant articles are already provided in the lead section.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

American expats in India[edit]

@Intellectualyo:, thanks for the addition of new information from a reliable source. I am wondering if this is a typo though. According to The New York Times, in 2008 the number of registered Americans in India was about 42k; I have added that to the article. Also if the number of Americans is in fact 700k, as the White House published, it would be the third largest foreign born population in India, after Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin, per this information from the United Nations. Moreover, Pew Research has a 2017 estimate of migrants in India, from the United States, at under 10k; this is also reflected in their 2017 fact tank article, which does not include the United States as one of India's top immigrant sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There is also an article about this subject, albeit a stub or start class article, Americans in India.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps this is due to former H-4 visa Indian Americans returning to India, or retiring naturalized Indian Americans returning to India upon retirement? I am not sure, but it could explain the jump from 42k in 2008 (or is it 60k in 2002) to 700k; but that is speculation on my part and doesn't belong in the article space.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
How can there be 700k Americans living in India, when not 12 years ago there were only 352k registered foreigners living in India? That would mean that the legal immigrant population in India in less than two decades would have had to more than double in size. Granted that is a small fraction of the total population of India, but it would be noticeable and something easy to document, no?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak to all the complexities here, but US-born American citizens, without some kind of ancestral claim to the informal "overseas citizenship of India," or OCI, cannot stay in India for longer than six months. For India does not recognize dual citizenship. If they have retired, their US social security benefits will cease after six months. These people are very likely naturalized Indian-Americans. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)