User talk:Libracarol: Difference between revisions

Hi Libracarol! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 18:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aggravated felony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alien (law), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Migration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aggravated felony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Directive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've made significant improvements to the readability of

There are still a number of references to the intentions of Congress that are red flags for original research - those kinds of statements should absolutely be sourced to secondary commentary and review, not to the law itself, except possibly in cases where a court opinion is cited - and even then, there should be a secondary source available to make that assertion. An example: "The plain language of § 1408(4) demonstrates that it was not exclusively written for the 55,000 American Samoans but instead for every "person" who statutorily and manifestly "qualifies" as a national of the United States" or more plainly "Congress is clearly and unambiguously saying that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(8), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and 1427(a) must be overridden by § 1101(a)(43) ... " I would expect to see clear-cut secondary sources for those statements, not (solely) references to a legal opinion. That's what I mean by reading like a law review article.

I would also observe that readability is compromised when referring to US Code references like "8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(f)(8)" and "§ 1408(4)", but I don't have a good remedy that wouldn't introduce bloat.

Thank you for your efforts, you've done quite a lot of work, and I'm trying to stay out of your way and let you work. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you and appreciate your concern. Before I go on, the "aggravated felony" concerns around 100 million aliens (i.e., approximately 75 million legally-admitted visiting aliens [1] [2], 13 million permanent residents [3], and 13 million illegal aliens [4]). This article should be written very accurately by citing only "published" opinions of judges and

WP:RS/AC. You can't get anything better than that when citing sources for subjects such as "aggravated felony" here. The only way to challenge the opinions of these judges (legal scholars) is to argue in a court.--Libracarol (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand, and don't necessarily see a problem. The usual case in which court documents become a problem on Wikipedia is when editors start quoting from filings, reporting allegations in court as facts or framing them in a way that introduces bias. This creates obvious problems. Court opinions are another matter. In general, I think policy would still favor references that discuss the court's opinions at arms length. However, that may itself start to swing things in a non-neutral direction, since analysis of court opinions is usually taken from a point of view.

I think it would be good to be careful to frame statements of legislative intent away from statements in Wikipedia's voice and more in favor of "the court held that Congress's intent was" or something perhaps less passive-voiced. Acroterion (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I hope I'm not misgendering you by using "she?" The default assumption of maleness on the Internet doesn't look like it should apply given your username, but I've been wrong before. Acroterion (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not misgendering. "We are bound by

National of the United States", etc., because they all involve the law. The opinions of ordinary people are meaningless when it comes to these terms of law. I agree, documents written by parties to a case should not be used in Wikipedia because they have no force and are often erroneous. Only precedents (published opinions) should be cited and quoted. If you prefer "references that discuss the court's opinions" then you'll run into many problems. E.g., the reference not being on point or it misinterprets the court's opinion and that could be fatal. Those "references" are usually news reporters or private lawyers, and many times they misinterpret the law just to win a case, see, e.g., here.--Libracarol (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Removal proceedings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Animus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to the Americans article caught my eye. I'm no expert on the legalities, but I think the part of your edit summary which said, "citizenship can be lost at any time but nationality cannot." is incorrect. Re loss of U.S. nationality, see Potentially Expatriating Acts in this U.S. State Dept web page titled Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Nationality and Dual Nationality. Re loss of U.S. citizenship, see United States nationality law#Loss of citizenship. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this today. The first thing to keep in mind is don't rely heavily on such websites because they often contain "clearly erroneous" information. For instance, someone at the State Dept. site stated this: "Non-citizen nationality status refers only to individuals who were born either in

lawful permanent residents, can become U.S. citizens and then lose their U.S. citizenship. If the U.S. Congress wanted that U.S. nationality be conferred only upon U.S. citizens and those born in American Samoa or Swains Island, it would have clearly stated such but it is no fool to say that. It purposely and intentionally stated "by any means whatsoever" in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(23) ("The term 'naturalization' means the conferring of [U.S. nationality] upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.") (emphasis added). That important phrase cannot be ignored in any way. See generally Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 583 U.S. ___, No. 16-534 (2018) (Slip Op., at 10) ("Moreover, our reading of [§ 1101] is consistent with one of the most basic interpretive canons, that [a] statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant." (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 314 (2009); TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001) ("It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.") (internal quotation marks omitted).--Libracarol (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

8 USC 1483 does not support the assertion that US nationality cannot be lost. It merely puts a geographic restriction on the loss of nationality. Nationality loss generally is governed by subsection 1481(a), which sets out all of the ways in which a US national can lose US nationality. The statement that US nationality cannot be lost is in fact incorrect.72.89.27.46 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. I'm trying to say that when a person becomes denaturalized, he or she does not automatically lose "U.S. non-citizen national" status. [8] [9] The day such person took and subscribed to the Oath of Allegiance is the day he or she became both (1) a citizen and (2) a national of the United States. Such person is statutorily protected against deportation from the United States.[10] [11]--Libracarol (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The law that governs loss of nationality is 8 USC 1481 [12]. This law provides for loss of US nationality, not loss of citizenship. Someone who loses US nationality through this law does indeed automatically lose US non-citizen nationality as well as US citizenship. As to denaturalization, that is when naturalization is declared to be null and void, usually because of fraud, in which case the acquisition of both US citizenship and US nationality is deemed never to have happened. The result is that the person is neither a citizen nor a national of the United States.Phoogenb (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Alien (law). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please don't use Wikipedia as a platform to promote your views EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every sentence I put in Wikipedia is properly sourced, which is based on the

U.S. Supreme Court, renowned legal scholars, reporters, researchers, and so on. You have a funny way of looking at things, and leveling false allegations against me is wrong.--Libracarol (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Your edit summaries here and here appear quite plainly to be based on your own POV regarding the term "illegal alien". This term was even discussed on Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States... where you should express any issues you have with the term. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of writing my comment at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States. Is there a rule that says I must swiftly respond to others within so many minutes? Regarding this, it redirects to "illegal immigration" and not to "illegal immigrant," which is a preposterous term that has no basis in US law. Someone created such term based on their own personal feeling toward "illegal aliens," which is the correct term widely used in USA, in both federal and state laws. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1356(r)(3)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1330(b)(3)(A)(iii) ("construction on the United States border, in areas experiencing high levels of apprehensions of illegal aliens, of structures to deter illegal entry into the United States."). This supports my this edit. I can cite many other sources if necessary, such as the Supreme Court, other federal courts, legal scholars, and so on, who will explicitly state that "illegal alien" or "alien" is not in any way pejorative but simply to identify a specif person. Nobody should call "illegal aliens" Americans or US residents, they have no rights at all to even be in the United States. Articles involving the law should not be based on news editors but based on law.--Libracarol (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a law journal and does not adhere strictly to legal terms. It uses common terms as used by

WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I hope you're not saying that "illegal aliens" have rights to be in the United States. That's basically saying visas are meaningless. Perhaps you're talking about asylum seeking aliens, those are obviously not illegal aliens, they're admitted aliens (finger printed, photographed, profiled, and given legal means to seek relief). I'm not making Wikipedia a law journal. In any article, before using it, the editor must explain that "illegal immigrant," "unauthorized immigrant," and "undocumented immigrant" are not legal terms but merely creations of so and so, or at least state that they have no basis in U.S. law. Is there a problem with that? These days anyone can make up stuff and post it online, but that doesn't mean it is

WP:RS just because it appears somewhere on a website. It is a bedrock rule everywhere that sources of information must be chosen based on authoritativeness and accuracy. Wikipedia also goes by this same principle.--Libracarol (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

To answer your question, yes, I am saying that. The Constitution protects the rights of "people" (generally) not "citizens". See, for example, Gideon v Wainright. As for sources and language, I've replied to you on the article's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But Gideon v. Wainwright is a 1963 case about an American defendant in criminal proceedings. The US immigration law has changed after the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Illegal immigration to the United States is about "illegal aliens," who have no constitutional rights to be in the United States except to request asylum, which is nearly impossible to get these days because the United States is as dangerous as the countries they came from. I suggest that you read latest Supreme Court opinions such as Ziglar v. Abbasi, Reyes Mata v. Lynch, Reno v. Flores, and others that directly relate to illegal aliens. Better yet, read this very recent 2nd Circuit opinion, starting at p.11. [13]--Libracarol (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zadvydas v. Davis, Plyler v. Doe, Boumediene v. Bush, Wong Wing v. United States... It's simply incorrect to say illegal immigrants have "no" rights. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, you must define "illegal immigrant", is this someone who lived illegally for a long time in the U.S.? Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), such person could get lawful permanent resident status. We can use "nonpermanent residents" in the article instead of "undocumented immigrants," which is a contradictory term. Secondly, I never said they have no rights. The law says they have "no rights to be in the United States" and must go to their own country. What part of this you don't understand. I'm not anti-alien. I personally think most illegal aliens just want to be part of the American society and live in the U.S. because they like it there over where they were born. Nothing wrong with that to me. But consider the fact that the law is always out there to get them.[14]--Libracarol (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aggravated felony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Permanent residence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deportation of Americans from the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Privilege (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Libracarol,

I've been drafting an article about Boundless, a technology company that guides immigrants through the green card application process. I have disclosed that I have a conflict of interest and I am absolutely committed to abiding by Wikipedia guidelines. I've been engaging with a couple of editors who are reluctant to approve the article because they don't believe the company is notable enough. I would be interested in your insights on this question, since you are clearly highly engaged on immigration topics. Most recently the company was covered in a Fast Company article that focused on some specific metrics (e.g. "On Boundless’s website, about 7,000 people a month begin their applications, and so far the company has a 100% success rate once applicants reach the interview stage of the process"). I think you'd be an ideal person to improve this article, and I'd truly appreciate your feedback. Many thanks! Messier6 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Libracarol -- thanks so much for taking the time to edit and improve this article! What happens next, in your experience? Messier6 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I resubmitted it and I think it should be created now. --Libracarol (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, Libracarol! In case this is useful, Boundless was just written up in a new article in the Puget Sound Business Journal, a regional publication. Here's the direct link, and here's a PDF of the full article. Thanks again. Messier6 (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Libracarol. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cancellation of removal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Age (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JC7V7DC5768 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help

). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Issues are sources which are passing mentions or Boundless or non independent (interviews with the creator), see

WP:NCORP

for what bar needs to be passed.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Boundless (technology company) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JC7V (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Libracarol,

Thanks again for all of your improvements to the article about Boundless. In case useful for further edits and improvements, I wanted to share some recent press stories about the company and its role in organizing the business community to respond to the DHS "public charge rule":

• Wired: Trump's Limits on Legal Immigration Could Hit Businesses Hard
• Geekwire: Tech leaders denounce new ‘public charge’ policy limiting green card eligibility
• Wall Street Journal: Business Leaders Voice Concern About Trump Plan to Crack Down on Immigrants Using Public Benefits

As I was sitting down to send you these new sources, I noticed that yesterday the Boundless article was declined by another editor. Is there any chance you could respond to this and ask for a second opinion, if you believe that's warranted? Messier6 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can you should try to involve more editors who are familiar with these rules on creating a new article, and with their support eventually Boundless Immigration will be created. I wouldn't worry, give it some time. --Libracarol (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your encouragement! Please let me know if there are specific editors you'd recommend I reach out to, and whether you think it's best to proceed with the current draft article vs. entering the Sandbox environment.

Also, I've noticed that some of Wikipedia's articles about immigration law and policy are pretty skeletal, e.g.

Liable to become a Public Charge. If I wanted to improve such content, which articles would you suggest that I prioritize? Messier6 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for creating Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship! I edit here too, under the username Rosguill and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that

The article relies too much on primary sources and would benefit from the addition of

secondary

sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Libracarol,

Thanks for creating Particularly serious crime! I edit here too, under the username Rosguill and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that

A lot of the content in the lead (particularly the full legal definition) should be moved to a section in the body of the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Libracarol,

Here's a quick update on the article about Boundless that you've been working to improve. The company recently received coverage in a number of news outlets related to trends in the naturalization process:

• Buffalo News: Study ranks Buffalo as fifth-best city for becoming U.S. citizen
• Cleveland Plain Dealer: Cleveland is the No. 1 city for immigrants to become U.S. citizens, study says
• Cincinnati Enquirer: Report: Cincinnati ranks among best U.S. cities for immigrants
• Geekwire (Seattle): Report reveals best (and worst) cities for becoming a U.S. citizen, and where the tech hubs stand
• Fresno Bee: Fresno’s record on naturalizing U.S. citizens isn’t just bad — it’s among the worst, says study
• El Neuvo Herald (Miami): Si quiere recibir más rápido la ciudadanía, múdese a Hialeah. En Miami va a agonizar esperando

I look forward to your thoughts and advice on improving the article and ultimately seeing it approved, given our prior conversation. Thanks again! Messier6 (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Libracarol! I just made several edits to the draft article about Boundless, incorporating the above citations as well as some more recent stories in the New York Times and Christian Science Monitor, plus news about the company's most recent capital raise. Please let me know if you have any suggestions on next steps. I truly appreciate your feedback! Messier6 (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Libracarol! Just wanted to provide a quick update that I'm reaching out to you and several other experienced editors with a history of editing immigration topics regarding this article: Draft:Boundless Immigration. As you know, the draft has an unusual history. As far as I can tell, the editor who declined it in December 2018 (User:JC7V7DC5768) was relatively new to editing and was subsequently blocked indefinitely for a variety of reasons. User:Robert McClenon declined the article in April 2018, and has stated in several places that he does not get involved in new article decisions once he has weighed in. You were the third editor to work on it, and I appreciate that you improved it and were in favor of advancing the article before it was declined by the now-banned editor. Meanwhile, the article (still in draft form) has nearly 30 solid references, which suggests that the topic is notable. I know that you're busy in real life, but wanted to keep you up to date in case you want to weigh in again! Thanks as always. Messier6 (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

promote your firm. Wikipedia is not a means for advertising. A better use of the Internet to advance your firm would be to improve your own web site, which is under your own control. I have not looked at your web site and have no recommendations about it, but it is under your control, and Wikipedia is under the control of a community of volunteers. If you continue to push neutral editors too hard to get help writing a promotional article that looks neutral, or a neutral article that looks promotional, you will either be ignored, or you may end up being blocked. Try working with your web site designer. If you don't have a web site designer, hire one. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Americans. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You are making changes outside of consensus. Please stop. If you do not, you will likely find your editing privileges suspended. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do anything to stop me from editing, you're just going to get yourself miserable by following and reverting my edits. Are you the owner of Wikipedia? Why are you calling federal circuit court opinions "original research novel syntheses"? You don't think US federal courts are reliable sources?--Libracarol (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not going to waste my time "following and reverting" your edits. I will, however, work to improve the articles I watch, or are otherwise interested in. Obviously, you've not yet mastered the fine art of collaboration. You should try, though; it's not difficult, and it's the way Wikipedia works (along with many other things in life). — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK dad I got your point. What I add in Wikipedia is information that children learn in elementary schools, and I find it shocking when someone opposes such edits. How can you not know that "American" means "national of the United States"? To say Americans are "nationals and citizens" is basically saying Americans are "nationals and nationals" of the United States. Only a true imbecile would disagree with me.--Libracarol (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or a non-lawyer who use language in a normal way! While you're welcome to disagree with the current wording, that wording is there because of a consensus formed through lengthy discussions on the talk page. That is where you need to make your arguments, and try to build a new consensus. However, I'd advise that you drop uncivil language such as "imbecile", and focus on content instead. BilCat (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the "warning" you left on my talk page: nearly a year and a half ago, I left an extensive explanation of why your theory that LPRs can claim US nationality is incorrect at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Green_card, but you did not respond. Your edit description claims that your material is "not original research" and that it "is backed by US courts and by various American news sources." But the news stories you cite do not address the assertion you're making, and court opinions are primary sources, so relying on them constitutes original research. Furthermore, the only court decisions that have ever found an LPR to be a US national have been overturned on appeal. That means (in contrast to your claim) that it anything but "well-settled law." Phoogenb (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That "warning" was intended to begin a discussion. I didn't respond because I was busy. Plus, what you wrote was illogical. Are you arguing that

WP:OR? Those news stories prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that green card holders were forcefully removed to Cambodia, and after their cases were heard in courts the men were returned from Cambodia to the US and then some were made U.S. nationals (Americans). I suppose you're talking about "Lee" [15] [16]. First, show me the case in which his nationality claim was overturned. Second, you fail to understand the vital difference between a REMOVABLE green card holder and a NON-REMOVABLE green card holder. [17] Lee was removable for being "convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 1341, and was sentenced to 6 months incarceration." [18] He broke his "permanent allegiance" to the United States on the day he committed the removable crime. See Barton v. Barr. [19] [20] Such person statutorily cannot become a US citizen. [21] But since both of Lee's parents were US citizens on May 19, 1983,[22] [23] including him no longer being an aggravated felon today and his sentence being merely 6 months, he could at any time and from anywhere in the world lawfully request and obtain US nationality. [24] [25] [26] [27] Maybe those were the reasons the court granted him that status in 2002. [28] The "permanent allegiance" for US nationality purposes can be broken and mended in the future, but ultimately the decision to grant or deny US nationality is in the hands of US government officials and the courts. [29] [30] There is NO statutory prohibition anywhere in the US immigration laws.--Libracarol (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

"Can you show me anything that says they're

WP:OR?": See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source#Law

: "Primary sources may include cases, constitutions, statutes, administrative regulations, and other sources of binding legal authority, while secondary legal sources may include books, the headnotes of case reports, articles, and encyclopedias." Cases are primary sources.

"show me the case in which his nationality claim was overturned": The appeal decision is reported in the NYU Law Magazine: http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/NYU_Law_Magazine_2008.pdf (also linked from the original talk page contribution at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Green_card).

Your analysis of the Lee case and of the relevant law is incorrect. The Cambodian examples are irrelevant because none of the cases involves an LPR who was found to be a non-citizen national. One was a US citizen before being deported because of the Child Citizenship Act, unknown to himself and to the government. Another became a US national by naturalizing as a US citizen after the deportation was overturned, but he was never a non-citizen national. None of them were. I've already explained why it is impossible for an LPR to be a national of the US: an LPR is by definition an immigrant (8 USC 1101(a)(20)); an immigrant is by definition an alien (8 USC 1101(a)(15)); and an alien is by definition not a national of the US (8 USC 1101(a)(3)). Phoogenb (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Libracarol, your input suggests you might be a lawyer, so I am treading lightly here. You recently added material to the

Many deportation cases have been successfully overturned due to a miscarriage of justice. [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Are you trying to suggest that lawful permanent residents (LPRs) of the United States should have no equal rights as criminal US citizens have to overturn their illegal deportation? LPRs have to have a criminal conviction to qualify for deportation, and that conviction has to be a deportable offense. Sometimes immigration officials make up bogus deportation charges against LPRs. Those LPRs eventually are found not deportable. In those cases an attempted miscarriage of justice was committed.--Libracarol (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to

Deportation of Afghan refugees from the United States

added a link pointing to Retroactive

Deportation of Americans from the United States

added a link pointing to American

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal articles: citing too many cases. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Illegal removal of people from the United States is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illegal removal of people from the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Slywriter (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. JBchrch talk 17:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a personal attack. It's the equivalent of a teacher telling students "students" unless you see students as teachers.--Libracarol (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the teacher and other editors are not your students. We are all Wikipedians, on equal footing. JBchrch talk 18:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry. I thought Alyo and Slywriter were law students. :)--Libracarol (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]