Citizenship From Birth

[Atencio 43]

Are illegal immigrants subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Best question of this whole thread.

I mentioned the Supreme Court case of 1982- Plyer v. Doe earlier in this thread.

In it the State of Texas brought up the argument of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court stated: "No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

Basically in a nutshell it is saying the 14th Amendment does care about immigration status

[Pooky 3,809]

I mentioned the Supreme Court case of 1982- Plyer v. Doe earlier in this thread.

In it the State of Texas brought up the argument of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court stated: "No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

Basically in a nutshell it is saying the 14th Amendment does care about immigration status

Jurisdiction, and the legal interpretation of the same, is the crux of the matter.

A citizen of another country can still request and obtain assistance from the government of their own country while in the USA. Therefore, they are still, at least in part, under the jurisdiction of the country of which they are a citizen.

[Atencio 43]

Jurisdiction, and the legal interpretation of the same, is the crux of the matter.

A citizen of another country can still request and obtain assistance from the government of their own country while in the USA. Therefore, they are still, at least in part, under the jurisdiction of the country of which they are a citizen.

Good point, but the reversal of that is that a Mexican that commits a crime in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. So now you see the problem.

[scandal 951]

A guest worker program with a legal avenue towards citizenship, which encourages/demands that such immigrants become integrated into society (English literacy, etc.) could work. I used to work with a guy who was Canadian (he was here on an H-1 visa). His wife was a Chinese national. They now have two daughters, both born here in the U.S.. Without jus soli, which country should have given them citizenship? You see how complicated this could get? My friend was planning on getting his citizenship here, but was at the mercy of his employer who sponsored him. It caused him a lot of grief because he'd been working in this country for close a decade and wanted to provide some security for his two little girls.

i don't think the average american is suggesting that any future guest workers program provide citizenship. firstly, it would be a program restricted to skills we need and it would grant temporary right to work in the US. the guest worker program i'm thinking about is a rotational program giving many people the opportunity to come here to work - come work then go home over and over again.

the couple's situation above isn't complicated. the daughters have a right to canadian or chinese citizenship or maybe even both. if this couple were smart enough to get here on H-1 visa, they surely should be smart enough to handle a daughter born outside canada/china (there surely would be a process). one could state that jus soli complicates their situation because it gives american citizenship and so complicates the canada/china paperwork.

Wrong. With respect to Canada, anyway. I don't know the rules regarding China. But I do know the rules regarding Canada since they apply directly to me and my children and the children in the above case are not automatically entitled to Canadian citizenship.

Canada has now instituted new Citizenship laws affecting so-called second-generation children born outside of Canada.

See http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/faq/citizenship/cit-rules-faq06.asp for details.

A child born after April 17 2009 outside of Canada to a Canadian-citizen parent who was born out of Canada does NOT derive citizenship from that Canadian parent. In the case of Steven's Canadian coworker, if he was himself born outside of Canada then his US born daughters (if born after April 09) would NOT be Canadian citizens. If, as those who would repeal the 14th Amendment would have it, US citizenship did not derive from birth in the US, these girls would have only one possible statehood to fall back on (China). The result being that children in such a case could very likely wind up stateless.

To clarify this point, let's change Steven's scenario just a little bit, to the case of two Canadian parents, so China is not a factor. Both Canadian parents were born outside Canada and derive their own citizenship through their parents. They marry and have a child born outside of Canada after April 17 2009. That child (2nd generation born outside of Canada) is NOT Canadian. If that child is born in a country that does not grant birthright citizenship (e.g. a fictional US some of you would like to create), that child is now stateless and has no citizenship at all.

It is not the US's responsibility to be a backstop to Canadian citizenship rules. But it would be the case that in this scenario the child would be stateless.

it is rather old fashioned. in this day where many of the world's better off can jump on a plane while 7 months pregnant and 2 months later leave having the most valued prize in the world (american passport) for life is ridiculous. it is why so many countries have changed their laws and it is why the USA should at the very least talk about it. it is the responsible thing to do.

Ridiculous? No. Should we in the US "talk about it"? You have a First Amendment right to talk about anything you like. Go for it. Personally I think there are more important things in our civic life that need attention than reforming the 14th Amendment, but this does seem to be a fashionable topic of late.

As an aside, I've pretty much given up posting on VJ. It's an incredible waste of time.

But I did feel compelled to enter ths discussion of 14th Amendment reform, and all this hooplah about birthright citizenship.

To most of you, it's an academic discussion or perhaps a chance to vent your views of US immigration law, politics, and everything that's wrong in your eyes with the Obama Administration.

To me, it's very real and very personal.

I am a direct beneficiary of US birthright citizenship. Without it, my entire life would have been different.

My story is as follows.

My parents are Canadian. My Dad was a graduate student at Cornell in the 1960s on a student visa, my Mom entered the US on an accompanying spousal visa. They then lived on Long Island while my Dad was doing his Post-Doc and my Mom was an RN.

I was born in New York state and have a NY birth certificate (short form, long form, whatever you want I can produce it and can be President one day). My parents did not come to the US to have a child. They came to the US - legally - for study and work related reasons. As newlyweds it was entirely natural that their first child would be born during those years. Shortly after I was born, my parents returned to Canada (with the infant me) where they continue to live to this day. My younger brother and sister were both born in Canada. My parents, brother, and sister are all Canadian from birth and none of them has any claim to US citizenship. I am a dual US/Canadian citizen from birth who derived US citizenship by virtue of the 14th Amendment, the Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision, and a NY State birth certificate filed in Albany NY.

My story then gets even more complicated: I acquired Israeli citizenship (that's 3 for those counting) as an adult, married a Brazilian, have 3 kids who now have 4 (yes, count them) passports: US, Canadian, Israeli, Brazilian. They collect passports like some kids collect baseball cards.

Anyway, I grew up in Canada, went to school there, and really thought of myself as Canadian. The US citizenship was an afterthought to me, until I was in my 30s and I got a job offer in the US, and took it. Whereas my Canadian friends would have needed a TN or H1-B visa, all I did was show up for work. I've been in the US for most of the years since.

I vote (including for County and local races), I pay taxes, I mow my lawn, I ride public transit, I read newspapers, I contribute to my local NPR radio affiliate, I eat turkey and cranberry on Thanksgiving, watermelon and beer on 4th of July, and I drop a few bucks in the Salvation Army kettle during the holidays. I petitioned -- successfully -- as a US citizen for the benefit of having my wife join me in the US based on a K-1 visa. If I were not a bona fide US citizen I would not have had that right. In short, I am part of the fabric of this country as much as those of you who would seem to think I should not be. Thank goodness public policy, and my ability to exercise my rights as a citizen of this Republic, are determined through the jurisprudence of our branches of government, in particular the courts, and not by the yahoos and loudmouths of the froth-at-the-mouth pack. Yes, you know who you are.

US Birthright citizenship is as tangible and real as daylight. I am living proof of it. Personally, I think it strengthens the country and is morally the correct thing to do. Of course, I have a biased view in saying so. COULD it be changed? Sure - just muster the votes for 2/3 of both Houses and 3/4 of all state legislatures. Good luck with that. SHOULD it be changed? I don't think so. And I'll exercise MY First Amendment rights to say as much, and to vote for candidates who say as much. Deal.

[Pooky 3,809]

Good point, but the reversal of that is that a Mexican that commits a crime in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States. So now you see the problem.

Watch out, or some here will accuse you of racism and racial profiling for singling out Mexicans

Wherever an illegal alien hails from, they may still petition their own government for assistance and the fact that the USA gives weight to such pleas indicates that US jurisdiction is not absolute.

[Heracles 417]

And I'll exercise MY First Amendment rights to say as much, and to vote for candidates who say as much. Deal.

Apart from it benefiting you and your kids personally, I fail to see why having the amendment is a good thing for America. Or should everyone basically be gracious for your presence here?

Edited August 10, 2010 by Heracles

[Atencio 43]

Good perspective scandal.

[Atencio 43]

Watch out, or some here will accuse you of racism and racial profiling for singling out Mexicans

Wherever an illegal alien hails from, they may still petition their own government for assistance and the fact that the USA gives weight to such pleas indicates that US jurisdiction is not absolute.

I don't argue with that but your argument about jurisdiction has been raised before the Supreme Court and they don't agree with you. Now what?

[Pooky 3,809]

My parents did not come to the US to have a child. They came to the US - legally - for study and work related reasons.

That one word makes a world of difference to a lot of people. Your parents did things the proper way - the legal way.

The current interpretation of the 14th Amendment is being systematically abused and taken advantage of by illegal immigrants, who have not done things the legal way, yet are gaining benefit for themselves and their family.

In a country that prides itself, rightly or wrongly, on fairness and justice, this wholesale abuse of the law, both by the immigrants and those the American people elected to uphold and enforce the laws, both Democrat and Republican, has created the reaction seen in public opinion today. Soon, that reaction could be strong enough to make a difference.

[Heracles 417]

Canada has now instituted new Citizenship laws affecting so-called second-generation children born outside of Canada.

See http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/faq/citizenship/cit-rules-faq06.asp for details.

A child born after April 17 2009 outside of Canada to a Canadian-citizen parent who was born out of Canada does NOT derive citizenship from that Canadian parent. In the case of Steven's Canadian coworker, if he was himself born outside of Canada then his US born daughters (if born after April 09) would NOT be Canadian citizens. If, as those who would repeal the 14th Amendment would have it, US citizenship did not derive from birth in the US, these girls would have only one possible statehood to fall back on (China). The result being that children in such a case could very likely wind up stateless.

What Canada is doing is actually logical, as it stops people from claiming chain citizenship. If you read the link you posted, it refers to the child of someone who they themselves was born abroad.

For example, assume I was Canadian by birth, decided to to stay in the US with my wife for the remainder of my life and had a child; they would be granted Canadian citizenship. What Canada is stopping is my child's child being automatically granted citizenship, if they are not living in Canada. Even then, if my child is to have their child in Canada, then they would be granted citizenship; which is quite reasonable.

Also keep in mind, your parents where here legally - which is fair enough. Big big difference versus people popping over here to have their baby alone. Both Canada and Australia allow for the kids of legal residents to be granted citizenship. The lack of two letters prior to legal makes a world of difference.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Heracles

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Hey Scandal would you raise your right hand and repeat after me?

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

[Heracles 417]

Hey Scandal would you raise your right hand and repeat after me?

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Quite a valid point too. Any legal resident has to swear allegiance to the United States prior to being granted citizenship. Where does an anchor-baby's allegiance lie? Particularly one who is taken back to the mother country and raised there.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Heracles

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wrong. With respect to Canada, anyway. I don't know the rules regarding China. But I do know the rules regarding Canada since they apply directly to me and my children and the children in the above case are not automatically entitled to Canadian citizenship.

Canada has now instituted new Citizenship laws affecting so-called second-generation children born outside of Canada.

See http://www.cic.gc.ca...rules-faq06.asp for details.

A child born after April 17 2009 outside of Canada to a Canadian-citizen parent who was born out of Canada does NOT derive citizenship from that Canadian parent. In the case of Steven's Canadian coworker, if he was himself born outside of Canada then his US born daughters (if born after April 09) would NOT be Canadian citizens. If, as those who would repeal the 14th Amendment would have it, US citizenship did not derive from birth in the US, these girls would have only one possible statehood to fall back on (China). The result being that children in such a case could very likely wind up stateless.

To clarify this point, let's change Steven's scenario just a little bit, to the case of two Canadian parents, so China is not a factor. Both Canadian parents were born outside Canada and derive their own citizenship through their parents. They marry and have a child born outside of Canada after April 17 2009. That child (2nd generation born outside of Canada) is NOT Canadian. If that child is born in a country that does not grant birthright citizenship (e.g. a fictional US some of you would like to create), that child is now stateless and has no citizenship at all.

It is not the US's responsibility to be a backstop to Canadian citizenship rules. But it would be the case that in this scenario the child would be stateless.

Ridiculous? No. Should we in the US "talk about it"? You have a First Amendment right to talk about anything you like. Go for it. Personally I think there are more important things in our civic life that need attention than reforming the 14th Amendment, but this does seem to be a fashionable topic of late.

As an aside, I've pretty much given up posting on VJ. It's an incredible waste of time.

But I did feel compelled to enter ths discussion of 14th Amendment reform, and all this hooplah about birthright citizenship.

To most of you, it's an academic discussion or perhaps a chance to vent your views of US immigration law, politics, and everything that's wrong in your eyes with the Obama Administration.

To me, it's very real and very personal.

I am a direct beneficiary of US birthright citizenship. Without it, my entire life would have been different.

My story is as follows.

My parents are Canadian. My Dad was a graduate student at Cornell in the 1960s on a student visa, my Mom entered the US on an accompanying spousal visa. They then lived on Long Island while my Dad was doing his Post-Doc and my Mom was an RN.

I was born in New York state and have a NY birth certificate (short form, long form, whatever you want I can produce it and can be President one day). My parents did not come to the US to have a child. They came to the US - legally - for study and work related reasons. As newlyweds it was entirely natural that their first child would be born during those years. Shortly after I was born, my parents returned to Canada (with the infant me) where they continue to live to this day. My younger brother and sister were both born in Canada. My parents, brother, and sister are all Canadian from birth and none of them has any claim to US citizenship. I am a dual US/Canadian citizen from birth who derived US citizenship by virtue of the 14th Amendment, the Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision, and a NY State birth certificate filed in Albany NY.

My story then gets even more complicated: I acquired Israeli citizenship (that's 3 for those counting) as an adult, married a Brazilian, have 3 kids who now have 4 (yes, count them) passports: US, Canadian, Israeli, Brazilian. They collect passports like some kids collect baseball cards.

Anyway, I grew up in Canada, went to school there, and really thought of myself as Canadian. The US citizenship was an afterthought to me, until I was in my 30s and I got a job offer in the US, and took it. Whereas my Canadian friends would have needed a TN or H1-B visa, all I did was show up for work. I've been in the US for most of the years since.

I vote (including for County and local races), I pay taxes, I mow my lawn, I ride public transit, I read newspapers, I contribute to my local NPR radio affiliate, I eat turkey and cranberry on Thanksgiving, watermelon and beer on 4th of July, and I drop a few bucks in the Salvation Army kettle during the holidays. I petitioned -- successfully -- as a US citizen for the benefit of having my wife join me in the US based on a K-1 visa. If I were not a bona fide US citizen I would not have had that right. In short, I am part of the fabric of this country as much as those of you who would seem to think I should not be. Thank goodness public policy, and my ability to exercise my rights as a citizen of this Republic, are determined through the jurisprudence of our branches of government, in particular the courts, and not by the yahoos and loudmouths of the froth-at-the-mouth pack. Yes, you know who you are.

US Birthright citizenship is as tangible and real as daylight. I am living proof of it. Personally, I think it strengthens the country and is morally the correct thing to do. Of course, I have a biased view in saying so. COULD it be changed? Sure - just muster the votes for 2/3 of both Houses and 3/4 of all state legislatures. Good luck with that. SHOULD it be changed? I don't think so. And I'll exercise MY First Amendment rights to say as much, and to vote for candidates who say as much. Deal.

Outstanding post! Thanks, Ron, for sharing your personal experience with this issue as well as provide a needed perspective.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Wrong. With respect to Canada, anyway. I don't know the rules regarding China. But I do know the rules regarding Canada since they apply directly to me and my children and the children in the above case are not automatically entitled to Canadian citizenship.

Canada has now instituted new Citizenship laws affecting so-called second-generation children born outside of Canada.

See http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/faq/citizenship/cit-rules-faq06.asp for details.

A child born after April 17 2009 outside of Canada to a Canadian-citizen parent who was born out of Canada does NOT derive citizenship from that Canadian parent. In the case of Steven's Canadian coworker, if he was himself born outside of Canada then his US born daughters (if born after April 09) would NOT be Canadian citizens. If, as those who would repeal the 14th Amendment would have it, US citizenship did not derive from birth in the US, these girls would have only one possible statehood to fall back on (China). The result being that children in such a case could very likely wind up stateless.

To clarify this point, let's change Steven's scenario just a little bit, to the case of two Canadian parents, so China is not a factor. Both Canadian parents were born outside Canada and derive their own citizenship through their parents. They marry and have a child born outside of Canada after April 17 2009. That child (2nd generation born outside of Canada) is NOT Canadian. If that child is born in a country that does not grant birthright citizenship (e.g. a fictional US some of you would like to create), that child is now stateless and has no citizenship at all.

It is not the US's responsibility to be a backstop to Canadian citizenship rules. But it would be the case that in this scenario the child would be stateless.

Ridiculous? No. Should we in the US "talk about it"? You have a First Amendment right to talk about anything you like. Go for it. Personally I think there are more important things in our civic life that need attention than reforming the 14th Amendment, but this does seem to be a fashionable topic of late.

As an aside, I've pretty much given up posting on VJ. It's an incredible waste of time.

But I did feel compelled to enter ths discussion of 14th Amendment reform, and all this hooplah about birthright citizenship.

To most of you, it's an academic discussion or perhaps a chance to vent your views of US immigration law, politics, and everything that's wrong in your eyes with the Obama Administration.

To me, it's very real and very personal.

I am a direct beneficiary of US birthright citizenship. Without it, my entire life would have been different.

My story is as follows.

My parents are Canadian. My Dad was a graduate student at Cornell in the 1960s on a student visa, my Mom entered the US on an accompanying spousal visa. They then lived on Long Island while my Dad was doing his Post-Doc and my Mom was an RN.

I was born in New York state and have a NY birth certificate (short form, long form, whatever you want I can produce it and can be President one day). My parents did not come to the US to have a child. They came to the US - legally - for study and work related reasons. As newlyweds it was entirely natural that their first child would be born during those years. Shortly after I was born, my parents returned to Canada (with the infant me) where they continue to live to this day. My younger brother and sister were both born in Canada. My parents, brother, and sister are all Canadian from birth and none of them has any claim to US citizenship. I am a dual US/Canadian citizen from birth who derived US citizenship by virtue of the 14th Amendment, the Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision, and a NY State birth certificate filed in Albany NY.

My story then gets even more complicated: I acquired Israeli citizenship (that's 3 for those counting) as an adult, married a Brazilian, have 3 kids who now have 4 (yes, count them) passports: US, Canadian, Israeli, Brazilian. They collect passports like some kids collect baseball cards.

Anyway, I grew up in Canada, went to school there, and really thought of myself as Canadian. The US citizenship was an afterthought to me, until I was in my 30s and I got a job offer in the US, and took it. Whereas my Canadian friends would have needed a TN or H1-B visa, all I did was show up for work. I've been in the US for most of the years since.

I vote (including for County and local races), I pay taxes, I mow my lawn, I ride public transit, I read newspapers, I contribute to my local NPR radio affiliate, I eat turkey and cranberry on Thanksgiving, watermelon and beer on 4th of July, and I drop a few bucks in the Salvation Army kettle during the holidays. I petitioned -- successfully -- as a US citizen for the benefit of having my wife join me in the US based on a K-1 visa. If I were not a bona fide US citizen I would not have had that right. In short, I am part of the fabric of this country as much as those of you who would seem to think I should not be. Thank goodness public policy, and my ability to exercise my rights as a citizen of this Republic, are determined through the jurisprudence of our branches of government, in particular the courts, and not by the yahoos and loudmouths of the froth-at-the-mouth pack. Yes, you know who you are.

US Birthright citizenship is as tangible and real as daylight. I am living proof of it. Personally, I think it strengthens the country and is morally the correct thing to do. Of course, I have a biased view in saying so. COULD it be changed? Sure - just muster the votes for 2/3 of both Houses and 3/4 of all state legislatures. Good luck with that. SHOULD it be changed? I don't think so. And I'll exercise MY First Amendment rights to say as much, and to vote for candidates who say as much. Deal.

So you're proud of a country that let you abuse its system?

In all honesty, you are not a citizen by means of the 14th amendment.

You parents proved that they had no allegiance to the United States. You were the exact target of the authors of the 14th amendment and who they did not want to be a citizen.

Now trying to be rude, but that's a face of life.

The 14th amendment has been bastardized by those with an agenda and who are illiterate in understand original intent.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Quite a valid point too. Any legal resident has to swear allegiance to the United States prior to being granted citizenship. Where does an anchor-baby's allegiance lie? Particularly one who is taken back to the mother country and raised there.

Pride in country does matter to me, as you are of Aus. Scandal also said he considered himself Canadian. With no real commitment to the country you have citizenship (given by the 14th) you could overtime have an overwhelming amount of the population that really doesnt give a dam.