Talk:Green card

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

WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States Public Policy    (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Public Policy, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.
 

Noncitizen nationality[edit]

The extensive discussion of noncitizen nationality is largely irrelevant. It is also misleading and in some respects simply incorrect, and it should be removed.

A lawful permanent resident (LPR) cannot be a noncitizen national. This follows from the definition at 8 USC 1101(a)(20) ("...“lawfully admitted for permanent residence” means the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws..."). This defines LPRs as immigrants, which implicates the definition at 8 USC 1101(a)(15), which says that "immigrant" denotes every alien who is not in a nonimmigrant class. That, of course, leads us to the definition of "alien" at 8 USC 1101(a)(3), which explicitly excludes US nationals. Therefore, if any lawful permanent resident were found to be a US national, that person would cease to be a lawful permanent resident.

The claim that a lawful permanent resident "may apply to the Secretary of State for a certificate of non-citizen national status" seems technically correct, since any person can make such a claim. But there is no evidence that any such claim has ever been successful for an LPR. Accordingly, the paragraph is misleading.

The recourse to 8 USC 1408(4) is misplaced. The effect of that paragraph is to enable noncitizen US nationals to pass their US nationality to children who are born outside the US and its possessions. It confers US nationality at birth to someone who has at least one US national parent and no US citizen parents. It does not apply to LPRs, because anyone to whom it does apply is a US national from birth who cannot become an LPR as outlined in the first paragraph of this section.

The statement that "the natural reading of § 1408(4) demonstrates that it was...written for...LPRs" is original research. No source is cited in support of that reading of the statute, which is in any event incorrect as noted above. The same is true of the statement that LPRs "statutorily and manifestly qualify as 'nationals but not citizens of the United States.'" The discussion that follows in the rest of the paragraph and the rest of the section is irrelevant to the article because there is no evidence that any LPR has ever successfully asserted US nationality.

(There is a case in which a district court found that an LPR was a national of the US (Lee v. Ashcroft), but that finding was overturned on appeal and the LPR's deportation was instead prevented through an argument that the offence for which he was to be deported was not an aggravated felony. See page 8 at http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/NYU_Law_Magazine_2008.pdf)

The idea that an LPR could obtain US nationality through any means other than naturalization was also rejected by the Board of Immigration Appeals in a case cited in this very article, Matter of Navas-Acosta, 23 I&N Dec. 586, 587 (BIA 2003): "If Congress had intended nationality to attach at some point before the naturalization process is complete, we believe it would have said so." This sentence is bizarrely cited in support of the statement that "Any person who can show by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she meets (or at any time has met) the requirements of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1408(4) and 1436 is plainly and unambiguously a 'national but not a citizen of the United States,'" but the citation explicitly says that an LPR may gain US nationality only by being naturalized as a US citizen.

Phoogenb (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It is common knowledge throughout the world that a longtime LPR can at any time "claim" U.S. citizenship or non-citizen nationality. It is up to the Attorney General or the Secretary of State to concede or reject that status. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(23) ("The term 'naturalization' means the conferring of [United States nationality] upon a person ... by any means whatsoever."). A person who is ineligible for U.S. citizenship (for whatever reason) can claim non-citizen nationality but this obviously requires fulfilling its criteria, and § 1408(4) is part of that criteria, which requires (among other things) at least 10 years of continuous residence in the United States.

A claim to U.S. nationality in connection with an application for passport shall be determined by posts abroad in accordance with the regulations contained in part 51 of this chapter.[1]

U.S. non-citizen national means a person on whom U.S. nationality, but not U.S. citizenship, has been conferred at birth under 8 U.S.C. 1408, or under other law or treaty, and who has not subsequently lost such non-citizen nationality.[2]

The applicant has the burden of proving that he or she is a U.S. citizen or non-citizen national.[3]

The applicant must provide documentary evidence that he or she is a U.S. citizen or non-citizen national. [4]

The Department may require an applicant to provide any evidence that it deems necessary to establish that he or she is a U.S. citizen or non-citizen national....[5]

A person who claims to be a national, but not a citizen, of the United States may apply to the Secretary of State for a certificate of non-citizen national status. Upon—(1) proof to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that the applicant is a national, but not a citizen, of the United States, and (2) in the case of such a person born outside of the United States or its outlying possessions, taking and subscribing, before an immigration officer within the United States or its outlying possessions, to the oath of allegiance required by this chapter of a petitioner for naturalization, the individual shall be furnished by the Secretary of State with a certificate of non-citizen national status, but only if the individual is at the time within the United States or its outlying possessions. [6]

Whenever Congress uses "shall" it becomes mandatory.[7] [8] The LPR, especially one who lawfully entered as a refugee, simply files a U.S. passport application (with additional information). [9] After that, a U.S. passport will be issued to such LPR. [10] It will have a page stating that the bearer is not a U.S. citizen but a U.S. national. [11] Not only in the U.S., this is done in many countries around the world. I guess User:Phoogenb is trying to say that an LPR who cannot obtain U.S. citizenship also cannot obtain U.S. nationality. But his or her argument has no basis in law or in fact. The article makes clear that depriving LPRs of rights is not only a "state-sponsored persecution" but also a serious federal crime.[12] [13] [14]--Libracarol (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
If for whatever reason the U.S. nationality claim (or the U.S. passport application) is denied then the person may simply take the issue to federal courts.

If any person who is within the United States claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States and is denied such right or privilege by any department or independent agency, or official thereof, upon the ground that he is not a national of the United States, such person may institute an action under the provisions of section 2201 of title 28 against the head of such department or independent agency for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States, except that no such action may be instituted in any case if the issue of such person's status as a national of the United States (1) arose by reason of, or in connection with any removal proceeding under the provisions of this chapter or any other act, or (2) is in issue in any such removal proceeding. An action under this subsection may be instituted only within five years after the final administrative denial of such right or privilege and shall be filed in the district court of the United States for the district in which such person resides or claims a residence, and jurisdiction over such officials in such cases is conferred upon those courts.[15]

This has been the law for a very long time but it appears that the public was not well aware. The legal principle known as nunc pro tunc is applicable in cases that involve exceptional circumstances.--Libracarol (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Some belated responses:
  • It is common knowledge throughout the world that a longtime LPR can at any time "claim" U.S. citizenship or non-citizen nationality.
If that were true, there would be some evidence of it on the internet. The only such evidence, however, is your unsourced contributions to Wikipedia. Not only is this original research, but it is incorrect and misleading.
  • It is up to the Attorney General or the Secretary of State to concede or reject that status.
Please cite one case in which the Attorney General or Secretary of State has conceded such status. You will not be able to, because it has never happened.
  • A person who is ineligible for U.S. citizenship (for whatever reason) can claim non-citizen nationality but this obviously requires fulfilling its criteria, and § 1408(4) is part of that criteria, which requires (among other things) at least 10 years of continuous residence in the United States.
You continue to misunderstand 8 USC 1408. It applies to children of non-citizen nationals born abroad whose parents meet the residence requirement specified therein. A person whose parents are not non-citizen nationals cannot use the residence requirement to claim non-citizen nationality. Furthermore, you have misunderstood the actual duration of the residence requirement, but that is beside the point. Finally, you fail to cite any secondary source to back up the incorrect claim. You will not be able to find such a source, because the claim is incorrect.
  • U.S. non-citizen national means a person on whom U.S. nationality, but not U.S. citizenship, has been conferred at birth under 8 U.S.C. 1408, or under other law or treaty, and who has not subsequently lost such non-citizen nationality.
This plainly states that US non-citizen nationality cannot be acquired after birth under 8 USC 1408, contrary to your claim. You have failed to identify another law or treaty that could confer US non-citizen nationality on a lawful permanent resident after birth, because there is no such "other law or treaty."
  • A person who claims to be a national, but not a citizen, of the United States may apply to the Secretary of State for a certificate of non-citizen national status. Upon—(1) proof to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that the applicant is a national, but not a citizen, of the United States, and (2) in the case of such a person born outside of the United States or its outlying possessions, taking and subscribing, before an immigration officer within the United States or its outlying possessions, to the oath of allegiance required by this chapter of a petitioner for naturalization, the individual shall be furnished by the Secretary of State with a certificate of non-citizen national status, but only if the individual is at the time within the United States or its outlying possessions. [6]
Again, you have not provided a single example of the Secretary of State furnishing any lawful permanent resident with a certificate of non-citizen national status, and you cannot do so, because it has never happened.
  • Whenever Congress uses "shall" it becomes mandatory.
But it is only mandatory if the LPR proves non-citizen nationality to the Secretary of State's satisfaction, which cannot be done because an LPR does not possess, and cannot acquire, non-citizen nationality. See Matter of Navas-Acosta, cited above.
  • I guess User:Phoogenb is trying to say that an LPR who cannot obtain U.S. citizenship also cannot obtain U.S. nationality.
Not at all. I am saying that no LPR can obtain non-citizen nationality.
  • But his or her argument has no basis in law or in fact.
I have cited judicial opinions. I have cited a case in which a district court found in favor of an LPR's claim of non-citizen nationality, but that finding was overturned on appeal. The only citations you have given are statutes. That is original research. Furthermore, the original research is incorrect because it misrepresents the statutes. Your recourse to 8 USC 1408 is analogous to saying that someone who has been present in the US for at least 5 years can become a citizen under 8 USC 1401(g). It is simply incorrect. That is why original research is not allowed on Wikipedia.
  • The article makes clear that depriving LPRs of rights is not only a "state-sponsored persecution" but also a serious federal crime.
Regardless of whether that is true, an LPR cannot become a non-citizen national, and the federal government denying such a claim is not depriving anyone of any rights.
  • If for whatever reason the U.S. nationality claim (or the U.S. passport application) is denied then the person may simply take the issue to federal courts.
No LPR has ever done that successfully.
Phoogenb (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding styling (underline and bold) to quotes from external sources[edit]

There seems to be a number of places where the article quotes an external source (e.g. from U.S.C. § 1408) but adds underlining and bolding to various sections. The reference itself will note "(emphasis added)", but that isn't helpful to the reader. At the least, "(emphasis added)" should be visible after each such modified quote. Even better, I'd leave the material un-emphasized and true to its source, and use links or the accompanying text to convey what these added stylings were intended to convey. (I fixed one such instance early in the article, but not having experience with this topic I've left the rest.) -- Dan Griscom (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. I've reviewed this discussion as well as other linked discussions and find a consensus here does exist for the page move, primarily based on primary topic arguments. Those that opposed the move gave arguments that were either rebutted by those who supported the move, or did not adequately overcome the strength of the rationale for the move. I have also altered the lead sentence of the article in line with CThomas's suggestion. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)



– Per the discussion on my talk page, I'm proposing this move. The current topics at Green card are all obscure, and the fairly obvious primary topic for it is the US immigration status. Here is an assortment of non-US sources commenting on the term and the visa status' popularity: [16], [17], [18], including one that uses the Green card as an analogy for non-US immigration systems: [19].
In terms of why move LPR (US) to Green card: it is the WP:COMMONNAME to the point where it isn't even funny. While permanent resident is the official title, saying "apply for a green card" or "has a green card" or "green card holder" has become synonymous with the legal status in the United States: [20], [21], [22]. This is even the case in legal publications. The term green card has become ubiquitous with the status, that moving the article there as a title to me makes the most sense. The other option would be to move Green card to the disambiguation page, and redirect to here, which I'd also be fine with. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Primefac (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Mild partial oppose - I came here from the discussion on your talk page and was going to comment there until I saw you had opened this instead. I tend to agree that "green card" in English language sources most commonly refers to the U.S. immigration status, but I think it would be inappropriate to move the immigration status article to a title that's a partial nickname. "Green card" isn't the official term, neither is "green card holder" which I would slightly prefer but still think the article should stay where it is. As for disambiguation, because it doesn't seem to be an overwhelming primary topic, I think a better approach would be to simply add to the top of the dab page something like: "Green card or green card holder is an informal name for lawful permanent residents in the United States. "Green card" may also refer to:" Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I disagree on the primary topic point and think that it is the overwhelming one (see my summation of the entries on that page). It is both primary in terms of significance and long-term usage.
      Re: immigration status, yeah, I get your point there, but our policy is also WP:COMMONNAME, and the article title policy generally prefers not having disambiguators to having them if possible (WP:ATDIS). I think the issue with the holder vs. card could pretty easily be solved just by copyediting the beginning sentence to read something like Lawful permanent resident status, commonly referred to as a green card, which would instantly change the entire article to be about the status rather than about the people, which seems more appropriate anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Official names are not preferred on Wikipedia. A WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is also a possibility. I disagree with the notion that "the article title policy generally prefers not having disambiguators to having them if possible". (What statement is interpreted as saying that?) Topic names that do not have a primary topic should be disambiguated, and the threshold for primary topic status is generally rather high. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
        • I think we're agreeing on official names and primary redirect being a possibility. I've always interpreted Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title re: parentheticals as preferring any other method of disambiguation, which would include the establishment of a primary topic if applicable, which I think is the case here. The pop culture uses over decades, shows the significance of usage culturally inside and outside of the United States over decades, and in terms of prominence, this page averages ~1,000 page views a day compared to the other contender for primary topic the insurance card system. Moving this to Green card holders is also a possibility both given the common usage of that over LPR, and its usage by USCIS which would show both common and official usage converging, which is a plus. I'm fine with any outcome that changes the current status quo on the Green card page here, and really am just trying to find a solution to it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
          • Yeah, these are all good points, I'm switching over to support. However, see below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the lead states that "green card holders" is informal but yet a simple Google search does appear to show that the term is used formerly, should this statement be changed? since I don't think we should rename to a similar title to one that our article suggested is informal. Also if the DAB page is moved, Green Card should continue to redirect to the DAB per WP:DIFFCAPS similar to Red Meat and similar cases due to the film and song. Alternatively the DAB could be moved to Green Card but given most of the entries use a capital "C" WP:DABNAME suggests the form that most of the entries use. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, USCIS titles it both ways, which is somewhat my point on it's ubiquity. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
      • If it's actually a formal term, then should the title of the article be Green Card (capital C)? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Then we might need to consider if this is primary for both the upper and lower case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
          • I don't think any Reliable Sources capitalize "green card" in this context. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
            • Only Boundless and the UK government website uses the lower case on the 1st page of Google results. Therefore I think if this is moved it should go to "Green Card" and the "Green card" DAB page left as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The song doesn't have an article (I removed the misleading redirect link). So it seems like Green Card could go straight to the film. Colin M (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
      • USCIS capitalizes it on their website, but other reliable sources are mixed use of Green Card vs. green card. I think proper noun could either go here, the disambiguation page, or the film. The simplest is likely here with a hat note, but I'm don't feel particularly strongly on sorting out the caps issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:Common name, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". Green card is the common name in virtually all contexts, as Tony has demonstrated. I also think that this usage of the term is clearly the primary topic; discussion at Tony's talk page revealed that the "sports" versions of green card are little known even in countries where the relevant sport is popular, and the IBM related article is completely unreferenced so we don’t even know if the use of the term is valid. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
P.S. To support the rename I would propose rewrite the first sentence of this article along these lines: Green card is a commonly used term for lawful permanent residency, permitting immigrants to reside permanently in the United States, and sometimes by extension in other countries. (The latter supported by Tony's link showing the Times of India using the term for Canadian residency.) Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Someone pointed out at Tony's talk page that the comparable permit in Mexico actually is a green card. If we rename this article to Green card we need also to make it more international. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed move (though there might be a case for green card to redirect to this article). "Green card" refers to the card itself and is syntactically inappropriate as a title for this article. A cursory Google search confirms this. Results refer to e.g. "green card holder" or "an identity card attesting the permanent resident status". This article is about the card holders and not the card. —  AjaxSmack  02:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    Interesting. That might be a second RM if we solve the PT question Red Slash 02:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support moving "Green card" to "Green card (disambiguation)" and redirecting "Green card" to this article, but oppose re-titling this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed as primarytopic for both criteria, both pageviews and significance. Red Slash 02:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: I am closing half of this discussion; there is a fairly clear consensus that Green card should be moved to Green card (disambiguation). However, there is not enough of a consensus (yet) to determine if this page should be moved to Green card; relisting to get further opinions on that matter. Primefac (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sourcing for status as well as physical card: Green card has been made the primary redirect here, which is better than before, but I still think a move is justified, and that there's an existing consensus for that, but I won't push it. A quick news search clearly demonstrates that "green card" refers to the status as well as the physical card. This can be seen in the New York Times, as well as Newsweek, and NPRand multiple regional and local sources: [23], [24]. The clear usage of sourcing is to use it to refer to both the physical card and the legal status, and this is the common name.
    The framing issue that has been raised can easily be solved with a quick copy-edit to the first sentence of the article that would instantly change it to be about the legal status rather than the people, which, honestly, it is about already. That is hardly an obstacle to following the sourcing and policy on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to Green card. Having read through both the discussion on TonyB's talk page and this discussion, as well as my own searches, green card is the definitely the primary topic and the WP:COMMONNAME. The point is well taken that the article is currently titled to refer to the holder of the card rather than the card itself. However, if we were to write an article about the card, it would be nearly identical to this one with perhaps an alternate first sentence (A green card, known officially as a Permanent Residence Card (PRC), is a document issued to immigrants under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) bestowing the rights, benefits, and privileges of permanently residing in the United States.). The rest of the article would hasically read as it does now, so I think we could safely change the title to the much-more-common name. (Having just reread TonyB's comment above, he says pretty much exactly this. Sorry for repeating.) CThomas3 (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. In UK. the primary meaning is (by some distance) International Motor Insurance Card System#Green card system. See for example this link from the AA and this link from the RAC, the UK's two main motorists' organisations. There is no worldwide WP:PTOPIC. Narky Blert (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    When I type site:bbc.com "green card" into Google, the first 3 results use 'green card' in their headline to refer to the US immigration status. It seems like the BBC feels able to use the term in this way without worrying that their audience will confuse it with the insurance card. Colin M (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.