Talk:Jus soli

message: Jus Soli does not solely apply to illegal immigration. There are nations such as Germany which in the past denied jus soli to the children of legal immigrants.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voss749 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Application of "Jus Soli" to legal and illegal immigrants

message: "However, today's increase of migrants has somewhat blurred the lines between these two antagonistic sources of right."
Should this article sound like a college student wrote it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaghettiHat (talk • contribs) 06:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's...?

message: I thought that embassies were considered territory of the state whose embassy it is (rather than of that in which it is physically) for all purposes, which would make this "exception" just another manifestation of this rule. --Random|832 15:38, 2005 August 19 (UTC)
:Yes, but how many child are born inside the actual embassy as oppose to in a hospital close to the embassy or consul? -- KTC 03:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Embassies

message: What is the source for the lex soli claim?  I haven't heard of this legal term.  I tried looking it up on the internet and everything points back to WP.  Can someone explain difference b/t Jus soli and Lex soli?  Rhallanger 04:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, some random person on the Internet knows Latin better than the folks at Merriam-Webster (I can't be bother to search for more). jae (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lex soli? 

message: This whole article could do with clarification. I feel it relies on having a general knowledge of Latin and a specific knowledge of how the two systems came into being. Most readers, I feel, would benefit from having the difference explained before a detailed explanation of the Jus soli.86.144.129.166 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First principles 

message: A number of countries have abolished rules which granted automatic citizenship to children born in the country:
* United Kingdom : 1 January 1983
* Australia : 20 August 1986
* Republic of Ireland : 1 January 2005
* New Zealand : 1 January 2006
However these countries have not moved to Jus sanguinis as they do not require the parent to be a citizen of the country in order for a child born in the country to be a citizen.   Instead it is enough for the parent to be a permanent resident of the country in question, or a long term legal resident in the case of the Republic of Ireland.
On this basis it's more accurate to state that these countries have modified Jus Soli rather than abolished it.   JAJ 04:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Romanian nationality law, which links to the text of the 1991 nationality law; Romanian citizenship is granted to a) children born from Romanian citizens on Romanian territory, b) children born from one Romanian parent on Romanian territory, c) children born abroad to one or two Romanian parents, d) a child found on Romanian territory if the parents are unknown. The law says nothing of children born to non-Romanians on Romanian territory, thus not qualifying for jus soli. NumbersUSA is wrong on this count. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Parts (a) and (b) are joined by the word "and", meaning that both descriptions must apply in order for the exclusion to take effect. ItsNickBarry (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abolition of Jus Soli? 

message: Although French nationality law is influenced by Jus soli principles, birth in France is not enough in itself to confer automatic French citizenship at birth.    France is therefore not a pure Jus soli nation, rather is operates modified Jus soli principles, as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand have all done.    JAJ 15:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is indeed very misleading as it creates the impression that there are only two types of rights to citizenship, namely by blood or by birth. In reality there are many more, i.e. by merits or by duration of legal residence, or simply by lottery. Taking France and Germany as examples is likewise misleading since non of the both had pure birth or blood based citizenship laws.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.114.209.57 (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: France not a Jus Soli nation

message: The word abuse just smacks of POV. Is anyone willing to correct it before I do? — D. Wo. 12:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better? Kill the NPOV banner if there's no other objects. -AndyBQ 00:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I removed the section "Deportations", which was unsourced and confusing. It is inaccurate to say that a country "ignores" jus soli when it deports the noncitizen parent of a child born in its territory. --Mathew5000 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deportations 

message: The text says:
:Modification of jus soli has been criticized as contributing to the growing global problem of statelessness, along with the creation of social underclasses and various legal challenges in countries like Australia. For example, in Australia, children must wait ten years before they are considered equal in the eyes of the law to their peers.
It isn't clear what children are being referred to (and therefore when the ten years begins) or in what respect they are not considered equal in the eyes of the law to their peers. Does anyone have an idea what was meant here? Ondewelle (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear statement

message: On 14 June 2008 the user 69.136.109.247 did remove the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic from the list containing "territories and countries that observe jus soli". 
- Sorry, not a country!, the user argued.
I'll change the wording of the prelude to the list from "Territories and countries that observe jus soli include" to "States and territories that observe jus soli include". Then I'll reinstate the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic on the list.
The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, PMR, is a secessionist state and breakaway republic from the Republic of Moldova. PMR has unilaterally declared it's independence without consent from Moldova.
Secessionist states with unilaterally declared independence are:
*Republic of Kosovo (from Serbia)
*Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (from Republic of Moldova). 
*Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (from the Republic of Cyprus)
*Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (from Azerbaijan)
*Abkhazia (from Georgia)
*South Ossetia (from Georgia)
*Taiwan (from the People's Republic of China)
*Republic of Somaliland (from Somalia).
The secessionist states of above have their own national territories, citizenries, laws and authoraties. And they're exercising control over the territories of their states.
A secessionist state is observing jus soli if constituition and/or citizenship laws of said state are written accordingly. 
kafukafu, 15 June 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 11:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is observing jus soli? 

message: "Jus soli" means "right of the soil". This "right of the sun" thing is a stupidity the likes of which I've rarely seen on Wikipedia. 
   First of all, "sol, solis" is 3rd declension and obviously has a genitive in "-is". Secondly, it makes absolutely no sense, because 
as far as I know the entire surface of the Earth is illuminated by the Sun. 89.136.181.58 (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right of the soil 

message: I removed a portion claiming 
[There is a trend in some countries toward restricting lex soli by requiring] ".... or that the child be a foundling found on the territory of the state in question (e.g.,see subparagraph (f) of ). The primary reason for imposing this requirement is to limit or prevent people from travelling to a country with the specific intent of gaining citizenship for a child."  
Clearly this is not true in the example and no country would require all its citizens by birth to be foundlings.  The US law cited simply allows for the presumption of native birth if the found child is under 5 until evidence shows otherwise.  I think the originator misread or didn't express this clearly.  The second sentence was unsupported and frankly I think pretty clearly untrue.  PantsB (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Blurred lines between ''jus soli'' and ''jus sanguinis''

message: I agree with some others that this article is overly abstruse.  What, for example, does "an every-day plebiscite of one's appartenance to his Fatherland" mean? The word "appartenance" is in no English dictionary I consulted. And the use of the word "plebiscite" seems beyond metaphorical.  Torontonian1 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every-day plebiscites 

message: I am removing the following paragraph, as it's relevance seems to be low.
"Additional doubts about the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment were fueled by the Supreme Court's decision in Plyler v. Doe, which held that “the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter.” But the Plyler Court did not address the citizenship clause in the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, but addressed instead the equal protection clause at the end of the second sentence. Because many readers do not notice that Plyler addressed, without analysis or history, the meaning of "within its jurisdiction", not the very different phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," casual readers misunderstand the meaning of Plyler. Some careful readers have purposefully fostered this misunderstanding."
If, as the writer asserts, the decision in Plyler v. Doe was not relevant to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, why mention it here? Moreover, nothing that is stated would throw any doubt on the scope of the 14th Amendment; if anything, the decision would tend to affirm it. The use of the word "additional" would imply that other doubts were mentioned previously, but the preceding paragraphs do not contain any. And the last 2 sentences really look like Birther editorializing.Gmalcolms (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plyler v. Doe 

message: Second to last paragraph under Specific National Legislation - United States.
It's not entirely clear what this quote adds. It is frightfully lacking in the level of justification that it provides, amounting only to "this guy with an important-sounding title" says that past interpretations of the 14th amendment are wrong. What evidence did Berger use to justify his conclusions?
Even if it is intended to explain why some legislators find the repeal of jus soli acceptable, the fact that "it was not a tradition when initially interpreted" is not an independent justification for revocation; it is only a partial response to the argument against repeal that jus soli has been a part of American culture for more than a century. Which, by the way, is still true, even if its origins are seedier than most Americans today might believe.
As it stands, it explains nothing, and is also inexplicit about what the implications of this finding are supposed to be. That jus soli is a bad policy? That it is not constitutionally protected? That it should be repealed because it has perverse origins?
Instead, it comes off as righteous indignation intent on picking out perceived "problems" with jus soli, even if they have no real effects on what jus soli is today.
Also, on a more technical point, there is a rather blatant - and immature - appeal to authority in listing the full title of Raoul Berger's chair, made even more inappropriate by the fact that the author of the quotation is Forrest McDonald, not Berger, holder of the title in question.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.29.51.166 (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  McDonald Quote on Raoul Berger - Necessary? 

message: Currently the article's United States section states, in regards to Native Americans and citizenship:
Congress declared it policy to extend citizenship to all Aboriginal peoples in 1924, which was realized in 1968 with the Indian Civil Rights Act.
The verbiage is misleading and I'm explaining here rather than in the edit summary.
The 1924 act was explicitly passed to guarantee citizenship. In 1968 the ICRA obliged tribal legal systems - which are largely independent of the US judiciary - to extend most (but not all) of the civil rights and legal protections in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights to tribal members in tribal jurisdictions.  I suspect the phrase "realized in 1968" is lifted from the citation text and was in reference to the fact that Native Americans, as US citizens, were now guaranteed (mostly) the same basic legal rights while on tribal lands as they were elsewhere in the US.
To be clear, the ICRA (25 U.S.C. 1301) does not address citizenship. (Please see the WP articles and their sources for more detail.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.18.189 (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native American citizenship in the US 

message: What does citizenship "based on word" mean? This is mentioned in the lead, but not explained. Does it mean based on oath? Kaldari (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed what seems to be an artifact of a prior edit. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship "based on word"? 

message: There are major problems with this section.
1. There is a strange leap from ancient Rome to the late 18th century. 
2. There is the statement: "But it was much later, when the independence of the English colonies in America, and the French Revolution, laid the foundations for jus soli ..." This misleadingly suggests that jus soli is a late 18th century innovation, but that is simply not accurate. England and Scotland, for example, had practised it since the Middle Ages. See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law#Early_English_and_British_nationality_law
There may well have been other countries that also practised jus soli and one cannot but wonder whether the American colonies (later the U.S.) continued English law (in a modified form) in this respect.
3. There is a paragraph contrasting the ideas of Fichte and Renan and on nationality. However, these men were concerned with concepts of nationhood in an abstract sense, with matters such as "what constitutes a nation?" and not with nationality as a legal concept. If Fichte's definition later became a signifcant influence on German nationality law, the implication of this is that previously the German states, or at least some of them, operated with something other than jus sanguinis. Incidentally, when did if first become possible to be a German citizen without being a citizen of one of the German states? As late as 1933 German passports gave details of the (German) state of which the bearer was a citizen. (This area could do with attention from an expert). Norvo (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section - major problems 

message: It is stated under the section: Modification of Jus Solis
* : The constitution was amended on 26 January 2010 to exclude most Dominicans of Haitian origin from citizenship, even those previously recognized by the Dominican state. The new constitution broadened the definition of the 2004 migration law to exclude individuals that were "in transit" to include "non-residents" (including individuals with expired residency visas and undocumented workers).Human Rights Brief: "The Constitution and the Right to Nationality in the Dominican Republic" October 29, 2010Soros.org: "Deprivation of Citizenship for Dominicans of Haitian Descent" retrieved October 22, 2011Huffington Post: "Dominican Republic To End Citizenship Of Those Whose Parents Entered Illegally" By EZEQUIEL ABIU LOPEZ and DANICA COTO September 27, 2013
Reason to oppose this statement:
It is given as fact that racial discrimination and exclusion of haitian citizens cite: " to exclude most Dominicans of Haitian origin from citizenship, even those previously recognized by the Dominican state" were the main cause of the modification of the Constitution. In October 2013, the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic ruled about how citizenship is obtained in the Dominican Republic http://tribunalconstitucional.gob.do/node/1764  and also the current Constitution (Article 18, numeral 2) defines Dominicans as:
2) Whoever holds Dominican Nationality before the application of this Constitution http://www.procuraduria.gov.do/Novedades/PGR-535.pdf  .  
These documents demonstrates that the current information provided by wikileaks is mere speculative and does not correspond to the truth.
Proposed modification:
I suggest starting a discussion where the current statement provided by wikipedia can be noted as: Accusations by NGO's and other Humans rights activist. Also, it is necessary to cite the Constitution and its mandates which clearly protect the rights of all current Citizens no matter their origin.
November 18,2013
No rationalization has been made to confront my argument of false information provided by the statement of supposed racial discrimination. I will delete the statement in 2 weeks from now if failed to response to my opposition.
Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.2.102 (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification of jus soli 

message: This revert and the edit which preceded it rely on this cited primary source for support. The source says,
It is WP:OR for WP editors to interpret a primary source but, in the absence of a cited secondary source which does that interpretation, two of us have done that here -- and we've interpreted it differently. Here, their clearly refers to the parents, and they clearly refers to persons who "declare that they want to be Portuguese". I don't envision they as referring to parents who declare that they want to be Portuguese but, rather, as referring to "persons born in Portuguese territory to foreign parents .." upon their return to Portugal some years after their birth who then declare that they want to be Portuguese. Either interpretation seems a bit of a stretch. Other opinions might be helpful. Relevant secondary sources would be really helpful. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the use of the word "and", the exception applies only if one of the parents is a diplomat. ItsNickBarry (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restricted ''jus soli'': Portugal 

message: Under Canadian law at least one parent must be a citizen or legal resident.
"THE RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP
Persons who are citizens
3. (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if
(a) the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977;
(b) the person was born outside Canada after February 14, 1977 and at the time of his birth one of his parents, other than a parent who adopted him, was a citizen;
(c) the person has been granted or acquired citizenship pursuant to section 5 or 11 and, in the case of a person who is fourteen years of age or over on the day that he is granted citizenship, he has taken the oath of citizenship;
(d) the person was a citizen immediately before February 15, 1977; or
(e) the person was entitled, immediately before February 15, 1977, to become a citizen under paragraph 5(1)(b) of the former Act. Not applicable to children of foreign diplomats, etc.
(2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply to a person if, at the time of his birth, neither of his parents was a citizen or lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence and if either of his parents was
(a) a diplomatic or consular officer or other representative or employee in Canada of a foreign government;
(b) an employee in the service of a person referred to in paragraph (a); or
(c) an officer or employee in Canada of a specialized agency of the United Nations or an officer or employee in Canada of any other international organization to whom there are granted, by or under any Act of Parliament, diplomatic privileges and immunities certified by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be equivalent to those granted to a person or persons referred to in paragraph (a)."
http://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/6160  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.249.4 (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the use of the word "and", the exception applies only if one of the parents is a diplomat. ItsNickBarry (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restricted ''Jus Soli'': Canada  ===

message: *If we are going to show countries that have abolished jus soli like India then we should use another color than blue so that it doesn't look like it has another version of the same thing.  I'd suggest creating a separate map showing which countries have abolished jus soli (are there more than India?) and which have restricted it (most of the light blue ones) and which have expanded it (Germany plus who knows where). In addition to missing Spain and Portugal, Colombia should be included in light blue.   
Both cited in the articlePatapsco913 (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure exactly what the relevant policy is here, but I think it has to support the deletion of an incorrect map. I don't know how the map is made and have attempted to contact its creator.  Bangabandhu (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is updated now. 72.191.248.253 (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Portugal and Spain are countries with restricted jus soli according to the text; however, this is not reflected in the map. -- Picapica (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Map needs updating

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jus soli. 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/20111125040302/http://www.statistics.gov.hk/publication/feature_article/B71109FB2011XXXXB0100.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.hk/publication/feature_article/B71109FB2011XXXXB0100.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118221836/http://hm.people.com.cn/BIG5/85423/6976796.html to http://hm.people.com.cn/BIG5/85423/6976796.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.civil.gov.sd/pages/nat.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Restricted jus soli should be called, partial jus sanguinis. If one parent has to be a citizen it's the same thing as jus sanguinis. What is the distinction between citizenship by blood, and jus soli requiring one parent be a citizen, it's a distinction without a difference. It should be changed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30BC:BC00:E538:512D:5246:A796 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restricted Jus soli?  

message: One aspect of Jus Soli that should be mentioned is its use to justify citizenship for non-native populations.
Why was just soli so popular in the Americas? Because the European colonizers were not born in the New world, but they wanted to be citizens there!
Are there any sources on this? Many European countries, particularly Britain was historically jus soli under the common law in the actual British isles, documented by William Blackstone "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in regards to the status or nationality of personsJamesniederle (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jus Soli as a Colonialist Tool 

message: This is in connection with US President Trump’s current talk about overturning unconditional jus soli, perhaps using an Executive Order to override the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Obviously if that became a fact, or even just headed a decent way along the road in public debate, then it should go in. But in general, much of what Trump says (or appears to say—a reporting-bias-created illusion perhaps) is so much sound and fury but signifies nothing. So my suggestion, by way of avoiding a needlessly premature edit war, is for everyone to stay calm, keep your editorial powder dry, and let’s just wait and see what develops. 70.123.153.76 (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trump, November 2018, let’s wait? 

message: Given that countries outside of the Americas with jus soli are the exception rather than the rule, would further dividing the "Unrestricted jus soli" by continent make the article more interesting?   I was searching for such countries and had trouble finding them in the list.  jlam (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unrestricted jus soli" by continent? 

message: Currently there is only one reference to the jus soli status of Azerbaijan, and even though the reference is a government resource, it is written in a foreign language and it isn't clear whether or not there exists an unrestricted jus soli law. I highly suspect this is not the case.Jamesniederle (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity on the Azerbaijan jus soli law 

message: This edit, which added details of a special case re Luxembourgh, caught my eye and put me in mind of this re the Philippines. It seems to me that, following WP:SS, such special cases should either go unmentioned here, should be summed up here with just a blanket assertion that special cases exist in some countries, or should only get a brief mention in relevant content for countries where they pertain with the details summarized the nationality law of the affected countries (here, Luxembourg nationality law and Philippine nationality law). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special cases (Luxembourgh, Philippines, probably others) 

message: Pakistan doesn't have jus soli without restrictions like the USA. In Pakistan children of refugees , vast majority of which are Afghan Refugees, illegal/enemy aliens and foreign diplomats are not entitled to citizenship by birth Muhammad Mahd (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAA PAKISTAN  

message: See official Dutch government website: https://ind.nl/nl/nederlanderschap/nederlander-door-geboorte-erkenning-of-adoptie (in Dutch) and https://ind.nl/en/dutch-citizenship/dutch-citizen-by-birth-acknowledgment-or-adoption#dutch-citizen-by-birth (in English)
Conditions (translated from Dutch):
Was the child born after December 31, 1984? The child will then automatically receive Dutch nationality at birth in the following situations:
*The mother of the child has Dutch nationality at the time of birth.
*The child's parents both have Dutch nationality at the time of birth.
*The father of the child has Dutch nationality at the time of birth and is married to the non-Dutch mother. Or is the registered partner of the mother. Or the father acknowledged the child before birth.
*The child and the child's mother have their principal residence in the Kingdom of the Netherlands at the time of birth. One of the mother's parents also had her main residence in the Kingdom on the day the mother was born.
*The child and the child's father have their principal residence in the Kingdom of the Netherlands at the time of birth. One of the father's parents also had his main residence in The Kingdom on the day the father was born.
You could argue that only the last three conditions are Jus soli with restrictions. I got my Dutch nationality at birth and my parents are Turkish, but my father gained the Dutch nationality, so I got the nationality by birth. It's true that The Netherlands are primarily is Jus sanguinis.
It's the almost the same in France and the Dutch conditions are even more flexible, so I will add it under restricted Remzicavdar (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Nederlands has Jus soli with restrictions  

message: The "non-citizen" designation in Latvia applies specifically to non-Latvian former Soviet citizens who live in Latvia.  Recent changes to Latvian law prevent the children of "non-citizens" from becoming "non-citizens" themselves (essentially a form of statelessness), but should not be considered "unrestricted jus soli". ItsNickBarry (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latvian "non-citizens" 

message: — Assignment last updated by Mriacona (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Race, Law, and Politics