This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Citizenship of the United States appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 November 2009 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that in the past, many courts ruled that homosexuals couldn't apply for American citizenship? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/November.

I noticed there were articles about:

• citizenship in general

• • birthright citizenship in the US
  • US nationality law (focus on the rules)

But there wasn't an article about US citizenship in general (both birthright & naturalized types). So I created it with appropriate links to the other articles. There's a chance that readers will search for "Citizenship of the United States" so perhaps a redirect page is in order.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 03:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll try to keep adding more information to this article as I learn more stuff. I'm reversing myself on some matters as I learn new things. I think more sources are needed, and multiple viewpoints, and it could use more pictures to make it more visually appealing. Not certain how to make it read "less like an essay" but I think just adding more info from different sources with differnt views will solve the problem.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 03:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Not to be a party pooper but the terms "American Citizen" and "US citizen" are not synonymous. US citizens possess dual citizenship in both America and the United States. American citizens are citizens of their state of the Union. Congress is fully aware of this fact even if the general population is not. See the current codification of 15 Stat 249. It is the expat act passed 3 weeks after the 14th was passed. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/22C23.txt.

This was a fact before the 14th amendment and it is a fact after the 14th amendment. A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States. [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855).

It also confirms what a plain reading of the Constitution says. The Federal Government ( a foreign corporation) was granted the power: To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Nowhere are they given the power to actually "naturalize" anyone. They are merely commanded to make a "General Set of Rules" which a Union State must adhere to IF they decide to naturalize someone.

Title 8 (not enacted) still reflects this very thing. Section 1101 (21) gives us "The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state."

This is not the same as a "US National" defined at (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.

The Secretary of State will politely and erroneously inform any American citizen requesting a certificate of non citizen nationality that only individuals from American Samoa can be "US Nationals". They pretend that "national" is not defined differently than " National of the United States" showing the 2 are not synonymous.

The truth is seen in the definition of "naturalization" at (23)) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of ""nationality of a state"" upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

“There are, then, under our "republican form of government", two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”. Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

No matter what propaganda the government may put out to push their "democracy" on us the facts remain. All the Civil Rights Acts are shams. The Declaration of Independence say "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights". This applies to White People, Black People, Yellow People. If Congress can "grant" you a "right" it is not a right at all. It is a granted privilege which may be revoked at a whim. Far to many people today actually believe that our "servant" the government has the power to grant its owners "privileges". Just ask Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. She has openly, on the record stated that she believes that you have NO RIGHTS except what the government "allows" you to have. You enter "voluntary servitude" without even knowing it. Today you are trained in school to believe it is normal. Peace and good luck. 98.206.222.240 ( talk) 00:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't the costs of citizenship be mentioned after the benefits? Things like being taxed on your income while working abroad, not being able to visit certain countries and so on.

Well-written article by the way, very cogent. 86.41.61.203 ( talk) 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I have quite a few friends who are naturalized citizens and reading this I feel one major benefit is missing - ability to travel to a number of countries without an entry visa. Also, legal residents who have to stay outside USA for more than 365 days may lose their green card but citizenship is unaffected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.72 ( talk) 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

It seems that some of the benefits of citizenship listed should be removed since they are not attached to citizenship, i.e., freedom of religion, expression, speech, keep and bear arms, jury trial, etc. These are rights of all persons in the United States. Smit8678 ( talk) 13:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

This article contains a number of inaccuracies in that it conflates "citizenship" with "immigration".

For instance, John McCain's proposal would not have allowed aliens to apply for citizenship, but rather for admission as legal immigrants (commonly known as Green Card). Applicants couldn't apply for citizenship until five years later.

I will try and correct these issues as I see them in the article.

Also, the concept of "anchor babies" requires some clarifications that I will add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin M Keane ( talk • contribs) 09:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

A contributor attached a "cleanup tag" to the article but without specifying what his/her views were about the problems that need fixing. As the rule here states:-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

In general, an editor who places a template message to indicate a problem like this should explain their rationale fully on the talkpage of the article.

So, whoever did so, please elaborate with the cleanup rationale, otherwise I'm removing the "cleanup tag" for the time being.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

There is a sentence I find misleading, which I intend to change "American law permits multiple citizenship, so a citizen of the United States can be a citizen of another country at the same time." Interestingly, citizens of foreign countries may retain their citizenship if their home country allows. But... native born and naturalized persons give up their U.S. Citizenship once they obtain naturalization in another country or pledge allegiance, etc, etc.

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481 Prev | Next § 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions How Current is This? (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality— (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or (2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or ... (3 the rest deals with serving in the government or military of a foreign state.) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html

"so a citizen of the United States can be a citizen of another country at the same time" is a bit misleading if not entirely incorrect. Reversing it is better: "a citizen of another country can be a citizen of the United States at the same time," but still... Tumacama ( talk) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Key is the highlighted phrase: (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the INTENTION OF RELINQUISHING United States nationality— WikiParker ( talk) 00:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC) reply

"Illegal aliens who get caught in the gears of the justice system face horrendous odds". Gee, NPOV much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersonalAppealsSuck ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I've taken out quite a bit from this section. The entire article reads like an essay. I'm putting the text here just in case.

Citizenship began in colonial times as an active relation between people working cooperatively to solve municipal problems and participating actively in democratic decision-making, such as in New England town hall meetings. People met regularly to discuss local affairs and make decisions. These town meetings were described as the "earliest form of American democracy" ^[1] which was vital since citizen participation in public affairs helped keep democracy "sturdy", according to Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835. ^[2] A variety of forces changed this relation during the nation's history, including specialization of people into more focused roles which didn't include civic participation, government centralization, technological change, media exposure, prosperity, increased mobility making civic participation more difficult, and so forth. Attendance at town meetings dwindled. ^[3] Voting declined. ^[4] Citizenship became less defined by participation in politics and more defined as a legal relation with accompanying rights and privileges. While the realm of civic participation in the public sphere has shrunk, ^{[5] [6] [7]} the citizenship franchise has been expanded ^[8] to include not just propertied white adult men but African-American men ^[9] and adult women. ^[10] Thinkers such as Robert Kaplan, ^[11] Naomi Wolf, ^[7] Dana D. Nelson ^[12] and others have suggested that the decline of citizenship may pose problems for democracy in the future. Nevertheless, a continuing benefit of citizenship offers a chance to participate in a dynamic economic marketplace.

Much of this is opinion and quotations and seems out of place in an encyclopedia. 70.90.87.73 ( talk) 20:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Honestly the entire article is too long and discursive for an encyclopedia. Much of the information and quotes are interesting but have no place here. I'm trimming it down to something workable but I'll try not to cut out anything relevant. If someone objects and feels I've taken out something important please leave a note here. 70.90.87.73 ( talk) 20:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you 70.90.87.73. WikiParker ( talk) 21:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Sometimes it is tough for the contributor-types (such as myself) to realize that less is more, that an article can be improved by shortening it, but overall I think the removals make it a better article, and I also thank you for your improvements.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply

There are too many citations to newspaper and magazine articles here and then they don't have citations to government, university or think tank reports that have the primary information. For all we know the journalists are using this article as the source for their articles. WikiParker ( talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary ones, and with good reason: using first-hand accounts is essentially writing our own conclusions and doing our own research, since we are pulling together basic data to present our version of how things exist. That is, using primary sources risks us writing original research which is against Wikipedia policy, which in turn lessens the effectiveness of this encyclopedia. It is not entirely clear to me whether sources such as government reports are primary or secondary; my sense is such information is in the middle. Think tank reports can be acceptable if they are published and widely read. Still, I think newspaper and magazine articles are the best source for us on many topics here in Wikipedia, particularly a topic such as Citizenship in the United States, since we have (hopefully) independent analysts -- reporters & editors -- writing for mainstream readers. This is a difficult notion for us Wikipedians to grasp, but I recommend you have another look at reliable sources if interested.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply

About the argument that there's some kind of circle involved -- that journalists use Wikipedia's information as primary sources, and then regurgitate Wikipedia to the public -- rest assured that this does not happen, for these reasons: (1) Journalists are always trying to get a different, fresh, new angle on a subject, and copying from Wikipedia does not give them this; journalists who regurgitate Wikipedia information will be boring to their readers, and will run into editors who roll their eyeballs when a reporter presents them with a rehashed Wikipedia article. (2) Journalists go straight to the primary sources you talk about -- think tanks, interviews with politicians and the public, journal articles, etc -- and assimilate this information to present a description of what they think is going on. They may use Wikipedia to get a sense of what is already known; but they do not use Wikipedia as a primary source. I used to work as a reporter and I know how this stuff works. -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't think your argument is very strong, Tom, except perhaps at the highest echelons of journalism. Many journalists are under tight deadlines to fill pages, and when writing an article may very well use the encyclopedia to fill out background information on a topic. Huw Powell ( talk) 22:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Perhaps journalists may use Wikipedia for background information, or for context; it may be the first place they look when having to write about any specific topic. But Wikipedia's information is already known, been in the encyclopedia sometimes for years -- so it is not new. Journalists who try to write the news will not use the olds if you know what I mean. Reporters and journalists don't win points by recycling old information. Further, for us here, we should try to avoid primary sources since we risk doing original research here.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I have added Saudi aramco as a reference as it is a Saudi government company with many expats including Americans working there. Their history involves cooperation between the Saudis and Americans.

As for the reference ( http://travel.gc.ca/destinations/united-states) please go to the tab 'ENTRY and EXIT requirements'. There you will see info about US citizens who have avoided military service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.207.154 ( talk) 03:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

A website for Saudi Aramco does not qualify as a reliable source; can you find a better source? Each addition made should have a source.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 10:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Americans thinking of ditching their citizenship may face huge tax penalties, according to this report in CNN.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC) There is a related article here.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

All Citizens of the United States are Americans but not all Americans are Citizens of the United States. I've corrected the section title, a few mistakes remain. 84.106.11.117 ( talk) 14:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Citizenship in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121014040015/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Citizenship in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090227093105/http://www.csmonitor.com:80/2006/1226/dailyUpdate.html to http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1226/dailyUpdate.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080502025727/http://online.wsj.com:80/article/SB119249790610260189.html? to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119249790610260189.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Reading War of 1812 and that one of its causes was impressment of US citizens, I wondered if some of those impressed might have been born before the Revolution (they would have been at least 36 years old in 1812, but that's still serviceable). What would their status have been? Obviously they were US citizens (well, assuming they were white), but were they also considered British? Would they have then been liable for impressment by the Royal Navy? Are there any examples, particularly of men who never left the US and never served in the Royal Navy? Hairy Dude ( talk) 12:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Citizenship of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114122347/http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html to http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014040015/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC) reply

This should be edited by someone who understands the reference to grandparents. It is biologically impossible to be "born to" a grandparent. Cospelero ( talk) 12:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I think I may have helped. An example, not put on the page, is applying for dual citizenship in Italy or Ireland because their laws allow citizenship under certain circumstances if one had a grandparent born in those countries. WikiParker ( talk) 15:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The "Rights, duties, and benefits" section reads like a propaganda leaflet:

• "The United States is a land of opportunity" - a common phrase but ultimately a value judgment.
• "Public service is a worthy endeavor and can lead to an extremely rewarding career working for the American people." Seriously? This is pure propaganda.
• "Freedom to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. As a society based on individual freedom, it is the inherent right of all Americans to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The United States is a land of opportunity." This phrase is derived from the United States Declaration of Independence, which is a political and propaganda instrument, not a legal document, and does not confer any actionable rights. This entire point is subjective aspiration, not objective political reality.
• "Support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." This is a specific duty of federal employees, who swear an oath to this effect. Citizens generally have no such duty as far as I know. Any assertion to the contrary is pure rhetoric.
• "Stay informed of the issues affecting your community." While this is a good idea in general, it falls far short of being an actual duty.
• "Participate in the democratic process." If this was a duty, it would be compulsory, but it isn't.
• "Laws are rules of conduct that are established by an authority and followed by the community to maintain order in a free society." A judgment of political philosophy. I happen to agree, but other points of view are valid and this should not be presented as a brute fact. Regardless, obedience of the law is required of everyone present in the US, not just citizens.
• "Participate in your local community." This is just laughable. In no sense is this a duty.

These points are opinions. Some are sound opinions, some are accepted to form the basis of US citizenship, but they are nonetheless opinions and we, as an encyclopedia, must not present opinion as fact. If these points are made by a specific (reliable) source, that source must be credited specifically as holding that particular opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a recruitment or immigration leaflet or a propaganda outlet. Hairy Dude ( talk) 22:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The Constitution asks or implies that citizens should reply to an enumeration of their numbers and some other facts of their existence. Shouldn't this requirement be included under the Duties of Citizenship ? Pjefts ( talk) 02:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I can see your point but this is not just a requirement of citizens but of non-citizen residents also. As for being a duty; I don't see that stated anywhere but it seems to be implied by the fact that you can be fined if you fail to respond. WikiParker ( talk) 13:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply

You may think that this is a trivial question- "just look at the last census bro"- but it's not that easy of a question to answer. The Census counts don't include Overseas Americans [1]. How may US citizens are there, really? Geographyinitiative ( talk) 00:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I am really confused by this article and United States nationality law. Both of them conflate two different principles. Nationality defines who belongs. Citizenship is what you get or owe because you belong. So, for example in this article, the text "There are two primary sources of citizenship: birthright citizenship...and naturalization" is wrong and doesn't really fit with the topic of this article. Those are the ways in which one obtains belonging. Once you are part of the group, the sources of citizenship are national laws and state laws which define the rights, obligations, and limits of citizens. For example, denying a slave, Native American, or woman nationality, meant that they did not belong. Without belonging they did not derive any of the benefits or protections, nor owe any obligations that citizens receive from states or the nation. So, they couldn't vote, couldn't serve on a jury, etc. Is there anyone who has worked on this page who is interesting in sorting this out? I am focused at present on a series of articles on nationality and it is difficult to merely add information on our gaps of knowledge considering the state of these two at present. Lots of good information in both, but the organization of materials and conflation of topics makes it difficult for a reader to understand either topic. SusunW ( talk) 19:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Tomwsulcer, I am pinging you, as you have contributed almost 50% of the content on this article. I have moved large parts of information from the nationality law article to its talk page You may find that information could be included here. SusunW ( talk) 23:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, SusunW, thanks for pinging me. Yes I did contribute much of this article in the before-times, years ago, before bread was invented, but there have been substantial additions and improvements since then, and I have only been following the changes sporadically. So I reread the lede sections of both Citizenship and United States nationality law and my sense is that they're both basically right -- as far as I know -- since I'm not a lawyer schooled in nationality law. If anything, I think both concepts are somewhat nebulous. As I see it, citizenship is about a relation between a person and the state; to an extent, it's about belonging. It's rather clear cut if you point to a specific American and ask, hmmm, is this person a citizen? They're either a citizen or they're not a citizen. It's less clear if we chance upon a human-like person and ask them, hmmm, what nationality are you? If they say, "Hey I'm an American" does that mean they're an American citizen, or they identify as American, or what? I would presume that such a person was a 'citizen' but I would be less sure of that. What I'm saying is that while both concepts are a bit fuzzy, the marker of citizenship is more distinct, and clear cut.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 10:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Continuing, a person who is a citizen could have arrived at this status of citizenship by one of two pathways: (1) choosing to be born here (or born abroad to American parents etc), you know, as a fetus, saying to themselves in utero, now which country should I be born in, and choosing to emerge from a woman who is physically present in the United States (even though mom wasn't a citizen), or emerge from an American woman citizen in another country, ie birthright citizenship, or (2) the naturalization process in which a legal immigrant applies for citizenship, passes the tests, and the government says, ok, this person is a citizen, here's your passport. Both birthright citizens and naturalized citizens are essentially equal in terms of the law (except the latter can't run for president). So, SusunW, do you have problems with my assessment? My sense is that's basically how it is.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 10:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for replying Tomwsulcer. I really appreciate the discussion. I disagree with your assessment. When you are abroad and asked where are you from, people are asking for your nationality, they don't care or actually even understand the fact that living in California rather than Kansas gives you different rights as a citizen. While every nation has the ability to confer nationality and citizenship, the US system is somewhat unique in the fact that national citizenship and state citizenship are quite different. Each governmental entity gets to decide what laws apply to whom.

Perhaps because I am a woman and women have been excluded, it is clearer to me. Women weren't citizens until the 1960s-1970s. Until that time, they didn't derive any benefits from being a national except that they could arrive and leave without a visa, (on their husband's passport, if they were wed until 1922-1940 - married women were not issued their own). Until 1934, they couldn't even pass on nationality to their children. The Supreme Court ruled numerous times that national legislation didn't protect them as citizens. At the state level, they couldn't control their own assets or earnings, couldn't vote, couldn't get a divorce, couldn't rent an apartment, couldn't obtain credit, couldn't represent their own interests in court or serve on a jury, unless state law allowed it. Pretty much, there was not any protection or authority to whom they could appeal for protection under the law, unless someone was willing to do it on their behalf, or they took up residence in a state that allowed them to do those things. The same held true for others who were nationals but not citizens and still does today, most pointedly for those living in various territories, as they are still denied national participation. As for the rights in states, it's still dependent on where you live. Heck, look at how varied the voting participation laws are and what a kerfluffle that caused in November. ;) SusunW ( talk) 17:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Now, continuing, nationality law is a different animal. It's about the laws about how persons and the United States interact. It includes concepts like citizenship but it's broader, since it also includes how the state deals with non-citizen residents, visitors, etc. This law is described somewhat awkwardly in the US Constitution but mostly it's statute law which has evolved in countless decisions over the centuries. If there are problems with the nationality law wikipage, then maybe we need to encourage more lawyers steeped in this subject to look it over. But my sense is the lede paragraph is essentially right.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 10:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Last, if people find these two wikipages (ie Citizenship in the US, and Nationality La.w etc) a tad confusing, it's because these concepts are a bit confusing, not well defined, a bit blurry in real life. That's not Wikipedia's fault. It's like, if we have a camera, and we take a picture of a blurry subject, it's not the camera's fault; similarly, if Wikipedians take a 'picture' of the concepts of US citizenship, and Nationality Law, and the concepts are blurry to begin with, it's not our fault as Wikipedians if our camera-clicking of these images results in a blurry image. Or blurry images I should say. We're just saying it how it is.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 10:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

You made me chuckle with the tad confusing and blurry comment. I think you captured it descriptively well. As for nationality vs. citizenship, I think its the reverse. Nationality is only do you belong and to whom. Clear cut. Citizenship encompasses all the other stuff, what you do or don't get. But you are absolutely correct that the confusion stems from the vagueness in the Constitution and the mixing of the words in US law. They aren't synonymous, but law has often treated them as if they were. SusunW ( talk) 18:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Thinking about it, that phrase "birthright citizenship" is a misnomer. You don't get citizenship for being born in the US. You get nationality. If you are born there, you are an American. After that the courts and legislature then get to decide what rights you have/don't for being a national. If they decide you aren't a citizen, you aren't, regardless of where you were born. SusunW ( talk) 18:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

SusunW Well, I guess I have a different sense of the term nationality. For me, nationality is a vaguer concept. Citizenship is much more clear cut. You're either-or, a citizen or not a citizen. I don't think that people ask themselves, or think in terms of, 'what nationality am I?' They may describe themselves as Americans (even though that term, in itself, is rather vague -- wouldn't Mexicans be Americans too?) in day-to-day parlance don't think about their 'nationality' unless they're abroad. And I disagree about your assessment, that if you're born here, you're not automatically a citizen; that's what birthright citizenship is all about. An immigrant woman, visiting the US, goes into labor and delivers a baby in, say, the backwoods of Alabama. Boom, the baby is an instant citizen. Mom isn't; baby is. Of course, baby can't vote until baby is eighteen. Some of your issues with women and lack of citizenship status, etc maybe could be included in an article on the History of citizenship in the United States which I had tried to write, years back, but it got whittled down, then deleted. Regardless, I think that the more you look into this subject, you'll get a sense that both wikis (ie Citizenship in the US, US nationality law) are essentially correct in their lede paragraphs at least. Now, I have lots of issues with the whole American conception of citizenship -- but that's my POV, not suitable here -- I think citizenship should be an active relation between a person and the state (if interested, check out my YouTube video, begin about 9:17 on the tape.) You might also like to check out my wikipage on History of citizenship which didn't get deleted.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 19:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Tomwsulcer, you've made my point. You aren't born a citizen because you cannot legally exercise any civil, political, or social rights in your minority. You are born a national. When you meet the requirements to become a citizen, 16, 18, 19, 21, whatever your state/nation says it is, you can become a citizen, if you meet whatever other requirements there might be. If I ever finish the nationality project, I'll look at citizenship. Right now, my plate is very full. SusunW ( talk) 20:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

SusunW FindLaw disagrees. It says "In most situations, any child that is born in the United States or one of its territories will automatically receive American citizenship. This is called "birthright citizenship" and is protected by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which (in Section 1) states the following: 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. However, children born to diplomats and other recognized government officials from foreign countries won't receive U.S. citizenship if born on American soil (Title 8 of the U.S. Code). If you were born in the United States, your U.S. citizenship will last your entire life unless you make an affirmative action to give it up, like filing an oath.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Also, another source says: Generally, if you are born in the United States, or born to US citizens, you are considered to be a US citizen. Unless you are born to a foreign diplomat. You are also considered to be a US citizen at birth if you were born in Puerto Rico, Guam, or the US Virgin Islands. Your birth certificate will be your proof of your US citizenship.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Another source here says A child born on American soil automatically gets U.S. citizenship, unless the child is born to a foreign government official who is in the United States as a recognized diplomat. Children born in certain U.S. territories—Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Marianna Islands, and Guam—may also acquire U.S. citizenship if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen and was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time before the birth..-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Tomwsulcer I know what US sources say about the term "birthright citizenship". But as I have been working on a series of articles on nationality, it is very clear that internationally "...nationality [is] more commonly used with respect to the legal bond between the individual and the state in an international context, and citizenship used with respect to the relationship between the individual and the state, but with respect to birthright there are no material differences." [2] Numerous sources indicate that the US uses citizenship and nationality synonymously "we use the terms 'citizenship' and 'nationality' interchangeably" [3], "In this paper we use the term 'citizenship' to refer to the legal relation between a person and a state... This status is often also referred to as 'nationality', particularly in international legal documents, and whenever citing directly from such documents, or from national laws, we cite the term as used in the original document." [4], which is probably because the term birthright citizenship emerged in the 18th century from a 17th century English law concept [5] and jurisprudence now distinguishes between the two terms. It seems to me that in an international encyclopedia, our job is to prevent confusion, as much as that is possible. While we cannot sort out centuries of fuzziness, we can at a minimum explain the confusion and try to lessen it. SusunW ( talk) 14:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

What?-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 16:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm honestly trying to follow what you're saying here but I'm not getting it. So I think that what might help is stepping back a bit from all this, to try to get clarity. A way to look at it, simply, is this: this article is about citizenship. It's not about nationality. That's different. Like, if you tried to write an article for Wikipedia entitled Nationality in the United States, I would not know how to write it, and I don't think readers would be helped by it. Maybe there is some overlap among the concepts, but trying to examine the overlap might risk us tiptoeing into the realm of original research.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I understand Tomwsulcer. All I am saying is that you don't achieve "citizenship" by birth or naturalization. You achieve nationality by those. Once you have nationality, you are eligible for citizenship, if you reach the age of majority that has been established by law (18 national, varies in the states). The benefits of citizenship vary widely across the United States and the two-tiered system is confusing (if it wasn't already confusing enough) because states get to decide on any right or requirement that is not federally mandated. SusunW ( talk) 13:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Let's agree to disagree.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

SusunW is totally right. Citizenship is not an international law concept, it is a public law concept, and the UN IOM Glossary refers to "nationality" instead of citizenship because “nationality” is the term more often used in international law. And clearly there is no "birthrigh citizenship" : in most countries minors are not citizens, they are nationals. Frenchl ( talk) 09:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This statement: "Since immigrants from many countries have been presumed to vote Democratic if naturalized, there have been efforts by Democratic administrations to streamline citizenship applications before elections to increase turnout; Republicans, in contrast, have exerted pressure to slow down the process."

appears to be interpretating a Republican allegation within the cited reference as a statement of fact. As far as I'm aware, no Democratic administration has ever claimed to hold such a self-serving motivation. I suggest this should be reworded to clearly indicate that this is an "allegation" not a "fact". — Preceding unsigned comment added by New~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply