Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally, I don't see the logic of citizenship following the accident of where you were born. Other countries confer citizenship by descent (or naturalization) so that it follows the parents.
I know everyone is fixated on illegal immigrants. But let me give a different example of the absurdity of the rule. The company I just retired from regularly moves executives around. Americans overseas and foreigners to the US; usually for a two or three year secondment. All legal and above board with visas etc. So, we have a young British couple come over here on a three year secondment. They are young, they have a baby (it happens). The baby is de facto a US citizen as well as being British. At the end of three years they return to Britain as planned. The baby is still a US citizen. It will grow up in the UK, go to school in the UK, etc. etc.. This child has no ties to the US other than the accident of being born here. But, under US law, is liable for US taxes, potentially selective service, etc. etc.. Help me understand how that makes sense.
What in the world? How did that baby become a US Citizen? The 14th Amendment specifically states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States". If I recall correctly, this has always (in court rulings) excluded the children of diplomats and other foreigners from US Citizenship.
What in the world? How did that baby become a US Citizen? The 14th Amendment specifically states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States". If I recall correctly, this has always (in court rulings) excluded the children of diplomats and other foreigners from US Citizenship.
When you are living and working here on a US visa, paying US taxes, you are de facto subject to the jurisdiction of the US. You could use the same argument for the children of illegal immigrants.
When you are living and working here on a US visa, paying US taxes, you are de facto subject to the jurisdiction of the US. You could use the same argument for the children of illegal immigrants.
A diplomat is different.
I stand corrected - the courts have flip-flopped on this issue, and any baby born on US soil (whose parents are not foreign diplomats) now automatically receive US citizenship. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause has been rendered null and void.
I stand corrected - the courts have flip-flopped on this issue, and any baby born on US soil (whose parents are not foreign diplomats) now automatically receive US citizenship. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause has been rendered null and void.
How have they flip flopped? All the rulings I have read seem fairly consistent in that there is an exception for the children of foreign diplomatic, and military personal, but not foreigners generally. Could you cite the cases you are referencing that show a court changed its mind?
How have they flip flopped? All the rulings I have read seem fairly consistent in that there is an exception for the children of foreign diplomatic, and military personal, but not foreigners generally. Could you cite the cases you are referencing that show a court changed its mind?
From Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884):
"The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
I stand corrected - the courts have flip-flopped on this issue, and any baby born on US soil (whose parents are not foreign diplomats) now automatically receive US citizenship. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause has been rendered null and void.
they have not flipfloped..the diplomated (ie embassy workers) are "considered" on foreign soil...ie a russian working at the russian embassy in ?????, usa. is actually working ON RUSSIAN SOIL
Good idea... bad idea... Constitutional Amendements are so hard to actually get done, I think the presumption must be that it's a dead on arrival idea.
But I've been wrong before.
An "Article 5" convention by the States would force the Fed to act.
From Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884):
"The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
That is interesting case, but not necessarily contradictory. The reason being, is that "Indians, not taxed" were considered to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the United states at the time (Sort of another special case like diplomats). Thus Elk, who was born on a reservation, was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the US because Native American tribes specifically had a carve out from US jurisdiction at the time. Immigrants however, seem to be put into a different class then Native Americans in that they are not specially excepted from the Jurisdiction of the US.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 01-28-2011 at 11:15 AM..
That is interesting case, but not necessarily contradictory. The reason being, is that "Indians, not taxed" were considered to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the United states at the time (Sort of another special case like diplomats). Thus Elk, who was born on a reservation, was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the US because Native American tribes specifically had a carve out from US jurisdiction at the time. Immigrants however, seem to be put into a different class then Native Americans in that they are not specially excepted from the Jurisdiction of the US.
Hmm... Okay. I see that I was reading more into the court's statement regarding the "jurisdiction" clause than was meant. Thank you for clarifying that, because it sure seemed like a flip-flop to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
