Humanities desk
< May 20	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 21

How do illegal immigrants prove that a child is born in the US?

If an illegal immigrant family chooses to avoid hospitals because they are too costly, then they may give birth at home. And if they deliver the child at home, then they need documentation of the child's existence as a US citizen . . . to undocumented parents. If the parents show themselves to the authorities that their child is a US citizen, then wouldn't they simultaneously be discovered that they are illegal/undocumented immigrants? What if the US-born child has older, foreign-born siblings who also arrived illegally or got an expired visa? Will the US-born baby have to be deported along with the rest of the family? Or will the family be ripped apart, in which case the illegal immigrants get deported while the US-born baby gets adopted by American citizens? SSS (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the last question, see Anchor baby. --76.69.47.55 (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This website gives some basic information about obtaining a birth certificate for unassisted home births. Midwives will help getting a birth certificate if they are involved. In California, the parents are not required to furnish citizenship information in order to register the birth of their child, but perhaps some states ask that. Normally, only the place of birth of the parents is asked. It is to the benefit of parents and the baby to register the birth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need someone who REALLY knows how British royal titles work.

On the talk page of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex‎ and in various sources that have no apparent expertise in this area, it has been claimed that there is such a person as "Princess Henry" in the royal family. This strikes me as being batshit insane. Does anyone know the exact rules for this sort of thing? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article attempts to explain it.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British_princess#Use_of_the_title_Princess_by_virtue_of_marriage. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Royal family naming rules really are batshit insane. http://www.princessmichael.org.uk/ I will now go back to pondering in what way Xena and Mulan are "princesses". --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mulan killed more people in one scene than were killed in the entire Rambo series. Do you want to tell her she can't be a princess? Iapetus (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when Princess Michael of Kent was constantly in the headlines. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure "Out Val" could give Mulan a run for her money. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC) (p.s. also noted for her fine taste in jewelery).[reply]

As could Xena. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not any more insane than addressing someone as “Mrs John Smith” as that article mentions. And they don’t have last names so “Duchess Henry” is the only option if you’re being super old fashioned. Even my wife once received a letter for “Mrs. Adam Bishop” and she doesn’t even have the same last name as me. Stupid old traditions are hard to kill. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should tell that Mrs Betty Mountbatten. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if we want to be consistent about such things, and yet all modern and non-sexist ... if Princess Charlotte of Cambridge gets married to a commoner, we should probably call her husband "Prince Charlotte of Cambridge". Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The old traditional rule was that if a woman owes an honorific to marriage, then it should not be added directly before her given (first) name. This applied to "Mrs", as well as to noble and royal stuff, so that an ordinary married woman would be known as "Mrs. John Smith", not as "Mrs. Mary Smith". In Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, "Lady Catherine de Bourgh" is known as such because she derives the "lady" honorific from being the daughter of an earl, while "Lady Lucas" (with the honorific before the surname) has her honorific from being married to a knight. In modern times, this explains why "Diana, Princess of Wales" was considered more correct than "Princess Diana". At the very top, "Queen" was an exception... AnonMoos (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what connection the discussion below is supposed to have with anything in particular. "Queen" was an exception because it was prefixed to the first (given) name of a queen consort. If "Queen" followed the pattern of lower-level honorifics, then "Queen Mary" could only refer to a queen regnant... AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what a a British rock band has to do with it. Is that why that article says "Queen are" instead "Queen is"? Because of the royal "we"? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen are an example of notional agreement. DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like saying "Manchester have won the EFL Cup" vs. "Philadelphia has won the Lombardi Trophy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, anybody who said the former would immediately be asked: "City or United?" (The third alternative (NB: not The 3rd Alternative or even The 3rd Alternative) would be too unlikely, at least for a few years, though I applaud the sentiment.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.82.140 (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note the singular plural about Coventry in World Forum/Communist Quiz. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I need to, as I was in no way disagreeing on the subject of notional agreement, with which I entirely agree and habitually use, and was, following Guy Macon's initial joke, merely making a further joke (hence the small print) about the ambiguosity of referring to an English soccer team only as "Manchester". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.82.140 (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Dear Editors,
I wrote a new article about Ms. Hanna Akiva, a disabled Israeli activist. I edited it until reference#13 (A clash with the police in Hertzliya). The rest was a machine translation, which has not been edited yet.
Is the article notable? The goal of the article is to describe the battle of the disabled vs the Israeli government from the viewpoint of Akiva, who was the most broadcasted person at this struggle. Thank you for your replies here. Dgw (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be pedantic... Articles are never notable. What is (or is not) notable is the subject of the article (usually a person or an event). I don't know enough about Ms. Akiva to say if she is notable or not... but Wikipedia:Notability (people) should guide you. As for your goal... please read our WP:Neutral point of view policy. If your goal is to present things from a specific POV, you are going to have serious problems. If you are trying to "make a point", Wikipedia is not the right venue for that. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Akiva meets the WP:BASIC notability guideline of a person who has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. References number 12 to 31 still need to be linked into the draft text. DroneB (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DroneB for your reply and reading the article. After your reply, I would be glad to continue editing it from WP:NPOV, and thank you again. Dgw (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refugees

There has been a tremendous amount of argument in developed countries lately about refugees. The premise is generally that they are economic migrants who have crossed through many possible countries where they could have taken refuge, to get to one where they can make more money. As such they get a frosty reception from locals who see them as a force dragging their country down to the global average income.

The question is - do these intermediate countries where asylum is easy really exist? Who are they? I have read, for example, that Nicaragua was taking a lot of refugees, though they didn't make much money. I know that Jordan and Turkey took a tremendous number of Syrians, but I don't know how tolerably they were treated. But is there a global-scale perspective that says that yes, people seeking refuge can actually go somewhere easily to be safe? And is there any overall movement for wealthier countries to try to fund and organize destination countries that are providing refuge cheaply, so as to give the refugees other options? Wnt (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the ones fleeing from Syria, isn't it more about survival, which is most basic of the hierarchy of needs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer for Wnt is found at xenophobia. --Jayron 32 15:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again, more briefly: Are there countries where refugees (if able to reach them) can go and reliably, easily be able to live a safe and free life there, even if a poor one? If so, where? Wnt (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is absolutely no country with a 100% open immigration policy. All countries have some sort of stipulation on immigration. Therefore, if you ask your question about all refugees, there will be at least one refugee that can't get into whichever country to pick. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A place like Sealand might, but it has limited space. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} [2] doesn't exactly sound like an open immigration policy. It's actually far more restrictive than nearly every other country. Note also that although Sealand used to (I think) hand out passports [3] and for a fee still hands out identity cards [4], titles of nobility [5] and let you rent (they say own, but you only own it for 10 years and then have to renew) a square foot piece of land [6], AFAICT these don't affect your likely inability to visit Sealand. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]