Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native-born citizen

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jus soli. Sandstein 13:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Native-born citizen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough of a topic here to merit an encyclopedic article. If there's anything worthwhile to merge it could be merged with jus soli. Mystylplx (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superlatively obvious Keep Not only is there gobs of material about this topic in reliable sources [1], it may (I'm not joking) be a constitutional requirement for becoming the President of the United States [2]. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a Natural born citizen article. Mystylplx (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had you read the linked law review article, which explores whether "native-born" citizenship is required by the natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution, you would understand the difference. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've also read the Congressional Research Service report which says native born citizenship is not required. The point is the Constitutional requirement is for natural born citizenship, not native born citizenship, and to the extent native born citizenship plays into Presidential eligibility it is covered in the existing article. Mystylplx (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, the linked Yale Law Revue article comes to the same conclusion, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. Both the law revue article and the Congressional Research Service say that anyone who is a 'citizen at birth' is eligible for the Presidency, which includes native-born citizens, but is not limited to native-born citizens. Mystylplx (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article "The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty" [3], is obviously not describing settled law. The fact that the authors endorse a particular POV on this issue does not eliminate the controversy, which they acknowledge. Moreover, citations such as "the Congressional Research Service report" are so ambiguous as to afford editors no reasonable prospects for locating the document. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's cited in the lead of the article in question. Second paragraph. Reference #1 for the article. Mystylplx (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as I stated previously, the point is the natural-born citizen article is specifically on the meaning of the phrase in the U.S. Constitution regarding Presidential eligibility. Any possible native-born citizen article would not be on that as the Constitution says nothing about native-born citizens. Any such article would have to be international in scope and would necessarily be a duplicate of jus soli, an article which already exists. Mystylplx (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're using a reference found in an article which concedes that it is about an uncertain area of law, for which the authors propose a clarification, to argue that the uncertainty does not exist? Did the Congressional Research Service know better than Yale Law Review, before the article was published? Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get where you're coming from on this. The CRS report came out after the Law Review article, and even so the fact remains--the Natural born citizen article deals with the question of Presidential eligibility. Any possible native-born citizen article would not and should not as the Constitution says nothing about native-born citizens. It's the native-born citizen article we are discussing here. The fact there is some small amount of confusion regarding the meaning of natural-born citizen is no reason to keep this other, different, article alive. They are two different articles. Mystylplx (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jus soli. Most of this small article merely duplicates material covered much more comprehensively within the Jus soli article. The place where it differs is this paragraph:

Being a native-born citizen is not exactly the same as the principle of jus soli (that is, citizenship due to place of birth). For example, a person born in Japan to Japanese parent(s) is clearly a native-born citizen of Japan. However, such a person became a citizen of Japan due to jus sanguinis (i.e., citizenship through descent) as Japan does not recognize the principle of jus soli. That is, if parent(s) who are not Japanese citizens visit Japan just to give birth to a person, that person will not be entitled to a Japanese citizenship.

It starts with the unsourced claim that "native-born" ≠ "jus soli", but then fails to explain the difference in the example given. There may be scope to improve the Jus soli article as regards the "native-born" term, but not using any content from this article, so I would oppose a merge attempt. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the current text is suspiciously similar to equine digestive byproducts. If this is redirected, which doesn't actually require AFD at all, I'd oppose protecting the redirect or other measures that would prevent writing a decent article on this topic. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I buy the logic in the above paragraph. I don't think it follows that anyone who is native-born and a citizen is necessarily a native-born citizen. Certainly that meaning has even less claim to meriting an encyclopedia article than the stricter meaning of someone who earned citizenship by being native-born. The former meaning certainly doesn't merit an encyclopedia article, and the latter meaning is already covered (better) in the jus soli article. Mystylplx (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect to jus soli ~~and establish redirect.~~ This was tagged for merger in 2008, it says... Isn't Wikipedia's consensus decision-making system grand? On the bright side, at least it's marginally less dysfunctional than decision-making in the American Congress... Carrite (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation tweaked per Mystylplx below. Carrite (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to jus soli. Not that it's for Brits and other non-natives to tell you guys about unwritten constitutions, of course, but a redirect could help this from coming to AfD quite so often. Maybe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (Original poster) I don't see there's anything to merge, so I say just redirect to jus soli. Mystylplx (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect to jus soli. Mt king ^(edits) 08:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the redirect should be protected. パンダ (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.