Talk:Alien and Sedition Acts

A biased reading?

Is this article about the Alien and Sedition Acts or against Jefferson? Or both?

The conclusion of the article is entirely devoted to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. It strongly intimates and almost explicitly asserts that Jefferson and Madison much more effectively threatened the American Constitution than the Al. & Sed. Acts. This may be true or may be false, but it seems to me irrelevant -- unless the aim is to present the Acts in a positive light against their critics. I have a sense that the most famous quote from the Sed. Act (the Sed. Act made a crime to "print, utter, or publish [...] any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the Government) has been omitted for the same reason.

A neutral account should surely mention the KY and VA Resolutions between the "effects" of the Acts, but it should explain what they were and how they were related to the Acts without trying to establish whether they were "actually" worse than the Acts themselves. A text along the following lines (Wikipedia's article "Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions" as on Nov. 13 2014) would do (I quote):

"The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (or Resolves) were political statements drafted in 1798 and 1799, in which the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures took the position that the federal Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. The resolutions argued that the states had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional any acts of Congress that were not authorized by the Constitution. In doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict constructionism of the Constitution. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively."

On the contrary, by producing only the quotes from Chernow and Wills, the article tends to present the KY and VA Resolutions in a way that is far too simple and partial: the article should at least hint at the complexity of the debate on this topic. Be this as it may, the question is whether a *verdict* on the KY and VA Resolutions should really be so central to our understanding of the Al. & Sed. Acts.

The final suggestion that the Civil War was the fruit of a seed planted by Jefferson is, to say the least, disputable and must be taken with extreme caution. This is a huge and very complex topic in its own right.

The site ourdocuments.gov provides a beautifully clear and unbiased introduction to the Al. & Sed. Acts, which might serve as a model for the Wiki article (http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=16).

(AE)

"though Jefferson also used the acts to prosecute several of his own critics before the acts expired."

Could someone with the books that are referenced for this line check the accuracy of this claim? I can't find any online source that says something similar. I think it should be removed if the owners of the books can't confirm it. My understanding is that the Alien and Sedition Acts expired as Jefferson entered office. Kringe1 (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I checked my copy of Chernow's biography of Hamilton and I think this description (brought up twice in the article, no less) is based on an elementary error. The cited page 668 of Chernow discusses the famous People v. Croswell libel case, but that case involved the alleged violation of New York's libel laws, not any federal laws (which, as you note, ceased to exist after Jefferson's inauguration). Furthermore, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment there was nothing unconstitutional about such laws, as the First Amendment along with the rest of the Bill of Rights was a check on the powers of the federal government, not the states. This is highly relevant because it undercuts the unstated implication that Jefferson was hypocritical for opposing the Sedition Act, while supporting prosecutions for seditious libel of those opposed to him. The Sedition Act was baldy unconstitutional, while the state laws were not.

As an earlier comment discussed in greater detail this article strikes a revisionist/anti-Jefferson tone through both the inclusion of this "fact" and the lengthy polemic conclusion centering on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Though of immense importance in their own right, the resolutions shouldn't be taking up the entire conclusion of an article on the Alien and Sedition Acts. Further revisions would be welcome.

Weygander (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Effects of the Acts

The effects of the Acts should probably include the internment of Japanese Americans (Issei only = first generation) who were resident aliens (Not allowed to apply for citizenship) and therefore validly declared "enemy aliens" by the US government. (For the record, internment of the second generation (Nissei), Japanese Americans and citizens, everyone recognizes now as totally illegal.) Student7 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This article should say how many Americans were fined and/or imprisoned under the act; and since it mentions some under both Adams and Jefferson, numbers for each. Craig234 (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Craig234

Donald Trump is in the lead

Under WP:MOS/lead, the lead should summarize the article body. I accidentally put this sentence - "Roosevelt's proclamations were cited by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as good precedents for his controversial position that Muslims should be banned from entering the United States for an unspecified period, as part of the undeclared war on terror" in the lead first paragraph, and in a later edit, I put it where it chronologically follows in the lead fourth paragraph. Both occurrences were deleted[1], with the edit summary "Trump is already mentioned in the 21st century section. There is no need for 3 references to him". I agree that there should not be three references to Mr. Trump's use of these acts, and I agree that this content does not belong in the lead first paragraph, but it should be in the lead as per WP:MOS. So I added it back to the end of the fourth paragraph in the lead... and I could not resist making silly pun in the title of this talk page section. :) MBUSHIstory (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is about an historical event from the late 18th Century. It is hard to justify that even a brief discussion of a widely criticized political position (only indirectly relayed to the article subject -- Trump referenced FDR not the actual Alien and Sedition Act) taken by a primary candidate in the GOP primary process in 2015 warrants inclusion in the article lead. Maybe once he's elected and actually implements this policy this will warrant further coverage. I'm not even sure at this point that it warrants coverage in the body of the article -- it should probably also be removed from there unless someone beyond MBUSH supports retaining it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with North Shoreman (except for the "once he's elected" part; I hope that's intended to be counterfactual). It's just not a significant aspect of the actual topic of this article. Could possibly be mentioned at Donald Trump, with a link from that article to this one, but given that he didn't mention the act by name, probably not even there. --Trovatore (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I now agree with North Shoreman and Trovatore, that the Trump info does not belong in the lead, by WP:UNDUE, after filling out info on application of the AEA from 1918 to 2015. The three sentences on the Trump proposal do belong in the body, because they directly arise from the EAE, and because Trump's proposal is legally based on authority of the AEA, and whether or not Trump disappears, the AEA that led to the proposal led to heads of state of major allies (Britain, France, Canada, and more) intervened in a US presidential campaign, which is of historical significance. I disagree that the article is about a "historical event" from the late 18th century. The article is about four laws, one of which is still in effect, had significant effects 150 years after its passage, and is still having effects. MBUSHIstory (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Alien Enemies Act and the McCarran-Walter Act

Our Immigration Act of 1917 article says, "The McCarran-Walter Act revised all previous laws and regulations regarding immigration, naturalization, and nationality, and collected into one comprehensive statute." Does anyone have information as to whether the McCarran-Walter Act modified or revised the modified Alien Enemies Act (50 U.S.C. 21-24) legal immigrants who become alien enemies? MBUSHIstory (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Error in article and otherwise reliable sources - AEA cf EO 9066 effects

There appears to be a confusion of proclamations and other effects arising from the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), with Executive Order 9066. 9066 was used in the internment of Japanese aliens as well as in the internment of Japanese Americans who were citizens, in addition to internment of Japanese. The AEA, its revision with 50 USC 21-24, and the numerous proclamations arising from it, applies only to aliens, not to citizens.

Our article (and possibly some of the sources upon which it relies), says "During World War II, it was used by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to issue presidential proclamations used to detain, deport and confiscate the property of Japanese, German, Italian, and other Axis nation citizens residing in the United States". The source says "In 1941, the Alien Enemies Act was utilized by government officials to incarcerate Japanese Americans." The source makes no mention of 9066. While the source appears to be generally reliable WP:RS, it is wrong here. Editors can verify that the source makes an error because the executive order, various presidential proclamations, and 50 U.S.C. 21-24, are all readily available online, and are easy to read.

It may be the case that prior to EO 9066, citizens were interned, but since our source fails to mention EO 9066, it is a questionable source as to this topic. I have found other sources, otherwise reliable, that similarly fail to mention EO 9066 and attribute the internments to proclamations based on the AEA.

Following the recent small army of legal scholars citing the Alien Enemies Act as legal authority for Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US, there are over 1,000 Google news results for a recent news search of "Alien Enemies Act".[2] I have been reading these, and many make the same error as our article (possibly because they are relying on our article for their background information).

EO 9066 certainly was used for internment. But does anyone know of any sources with more specificity as to whether the AEA was used for internment of citizens, or is this just an error being propelled through otherwise reliable sources because of the recent emergence of large scale discussion of the AEA following Trump's citation of its corollaries? MBUSHIstory (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Was source of Jimmy Carter's authority to ban Iranian immigrants the Alien Enemies Act?

Does anyone know if any of the source of Jimmy Carter's authority to ban Iranian immigrants in 1980 come from the Alien Enemies Act? Did any of it come from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965? Did any of it come from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran–Walter Act)? If anyone knows, could they please cite RS sources for their info? MBUSHIstory (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)