This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, 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.
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
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution of the United States 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.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of National Archives project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National ArchivesWikipedia:WikiProject National ArchivesTemplate:WikiProject National ArchivesNational Archives
Three fifths compromise relevant part in context of migration
If three fifths compromise not been put explicitly repealed and it refers to "other persons", has there been any modern debate around counting non naturalised immigrants towards working out a states modern Congressional entitlement? 91.84.189.190 (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what this has to do with the Fourteenth Amendment, but here's your answer: The Constitution says that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Illegal immigrants are free people, so they do not fall into the Three-fifths Compromise. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's attempt to overturn Birthright Citizenship
I was shocked there's no section on trump's 2025 EO to end birthright citizenship and how courts have put up orders stopping it. This seems like a major section to add (debatably moreso than some of the details on his lawsuit over running for office, since this is a direct constitutional threat). 2600:4040:B624:FF00:3414:A516:F54E:279D (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is opinionated, "Furthermore, many of the freed slaves whose children were covered by the Citizenship Clause were illegal immigrants brought in violation of the 1807 Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves.[26]". It also fails to state these freed slaves did not willingly immigrate to the United States only to be defined as illegal immigrants to their own detriment. The published opinion in the article is putting the cart before the horse. Stjoan1 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, it is a moot topic as SCOTUS is bound by: Section 5 of the 14th Amendment states, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Subsequently, 8 U.S. Code § 1401 states in part, “ The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” This section about Trump's attempt actually belongs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_StatesStjoan1 (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second your motion for a good article reassessment. The article is extremely verbose for an amendment that should be succinct. As it currently stands, it is not a tier 1 encyclopedia research source. It should only be addressing three questions, which can do done in less than 2,000 words:
Hi @Stjoan1, the good article reassessment is already ongoing (see below). Per WP:SIZERULE, since the article is only 4876 words of readable prose right now, the "length alone does not justify division or trimming," especially for such a heavily litigated amendment, but you're free to propose changes here or WP:BOLDLY implement them yourself. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of uncited text. The article uses lots of block quotes, when Wikipedia recommends a summary style. The article is quite long: removing some of the block quotes might help with this, but there might also be places where the prose could be shorter. Z1720 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested in helping, although the timeline of GARs may be on the fast side relative to what I can contribute. I've put this and the article on my watchlist, and I'll see what I can do. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓03:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: GARs now typically stay open for a month (or will be closed as "keep" early if concerns are resolved). If there's ongoing improvements it will remain open past that one month. Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if they are still interested, but I will start addressing the uncited text and excessive block quotes now, so I would appreciate keeping this review open for a few more days. Thanks! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I have done the lead, Section 4, Section 5, and Adoption sections with some big cuts, mostly along Z1720's opening remarks that the prose is excessive, especially in block quotes to SCOTUS cases. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done with Section 3 (Insurrection Clause), which I am particularly happy about since it was the impetus for the entire amendment. Furthermore, the old prose seemed to be a play-by-play of 2021-'24 disqualification cases rather than succinctly stating what Section 3 does and how it has been used. Still chugging along! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the check-in and apologies that this is now the longest-running open GAR. Since my last update, I finished the state actor doctrine and Section 2, and I'm close to finishing with the Equal Protection Clause. Currently reading Eric Foner's The Second Founding to round out my thinking on the key cases to include. Hope to finish within a week, but see above for my earlier naivety that I would finish the whole GAR work within a few days 🤣 ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 18:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The text in the opening, “at all levels of government,” is erroneous. The 14th Amendment applies to States, not the Federal government. The 5th Amendment due process clause applies to the Federal government, not the 14th. Suggest “at all levels of government,” be charged to “in state governments” or “at all levels of state governments.” 2600:387:15:5519:0:0:0:3 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The more logical argument is the 1807 slave trade act prohibited the importation of slaves. It did not abolish slavery itself within the United States, nor did it prohibit the interstate slave trade. Believing a slave in 1808 was an illegal immigrant is like believing income is not taxable by citing archaic law before the 16th Amendment. Stjoan1 (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this argument that the 1807 Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves informs our interpretation of the Citizenship Clause is cited to a UC Davis Law Review paper from constitutional law scholars Gabriel J. Chin and Paul Finkelman and was repeated by Ilya Somin in the Volokh Conspiracy. Regardless of my personal belief that even conservative courts will decline to adopt your Dred Scott-esque framing of pre-13th Amendment slaves as property, this sentence is sourced to a reliable source. To argue for its removal or the inclusion of a counter-argument, we need a reliable source making your claim, not an original legal argument. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 17:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ViridianPenguin Are you replying to me or to the person that started this section? I'm well aware of your source cited as I originally took it out claiming citing a source within a source. You have since corrected that oversight. Personnaly, I'm concerned that you are using the term "illegal immigrants" prior to citing your source but your source is using "unauthorized migrants". The only mention of slaves and "illegal immigrants" are quoted from another source in relation to the 1870 census. In all, this is too much information as the 14th Amendment is clear on birthright citizenship but whoever decided to include Trump's challenge to brighright citizenship in the Wikipedia article opened the door. Peronally, I think we are putting the cart before the horse and it is too soon to be bring this up in the article. At the very least it should end at "...enforcement of the Executive Order has been blocked as unconstitutional by multiple federal judges." At least until the matter is finally put to bed by SCOTUS. Stjoan1 (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to both of you. Yes, the Chin and Finkelman (2021) source uses "unauthorized migrants" instead of "illegal immigrants" but that seems like a distinction without a difference because both terms clearly refer to the same group in this context, so I chose "illegal immigrants" because it is more common in American political discourse. I disagree that discussion of Trump's arguments by legal academics is unnecessary. WP:CRYSTALBALL says Wikipedia should not independently speculate on the future, but if the reliable sources discuss the viability of Trump's arguments, then we need not wait until SCOTUS clarification. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ViridianPenguin I disagree with your choice to use "illegal immigrants" rather than the term the authors of the source use for slaves after 1807. The word "illegal" carries a stronger negative connotation, implying individual criminality, whereas "unauthorized" is generally perceived as a more neutral term, simply indicating a lack of legal permission—an accurate description in the context of slavery. Therefore, the authors are correct in using "unauthorized migrants." Adjusting terminology to align with "political discourse" extends beyond a mere distinction without difference, as a reader reviewing the cited reference would recognize. Stjoan1 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ViridianPenguin The term "illegal immigrant" is frequently misused in political discourse. Children are generally not classified as illegal immigrants or accessories to their parents' unlawful entry. Legally, an accessory is someone who knowingly assists in the commission of a crime, but children lack agency in migration decisions and are brought along without intent or awareness of legal violations, meaning they do not fit this classification. Similarly, an enslaved person in 1808 should not be equated with an illegal immigrant. This distinction likely influenced the authors of the source, who deliberately avoided labels that are often misapplied. Using such terminology could undermine the integrity of their work. Stjoan1 (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Not done As you note, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause requires the federal government to provide "due process of law." However, that goes beyond procedural due process. Through the doctrine of reverse incorporation, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause has expanded the Equal Protection Clause into a federal responsibility too. Hence, the Fourteenth Amendment has provided "equal protection under the law at all levels of government." Hope this helps! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 13:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)