Birthright citizenship

[Ritterskoop]

I am learning about birthright citizenship in the US (it was added to the Constitution after the Civil War, to ensure that Black folks born here -- to parents who were brought against their will -- would be citizens). This makes me wonder about other places that don't have this right written down.

If we vote to amend the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship (this feels unlikely as it would require 75% of the states), or the Supreme Court re-interprets the 14th Amendment, I would have this question:

If being born in a place does not confer citizenship, what does? How would we all know that we are citizens? Could anyone be designated not a citizen at the whim of someone else in charge?

Is there a test? Are folks who can't pass the test due to mental defect exempt? I get that maybe children are not citizens, until they reach some age specified by the state or the Constitution (not sure if this is already in there, though).

I'm off to read about other nations and how they handle this. Birthright citizenship feels like one of the main defining qualities of American life, in that lots of different kinds of people live here (and I think that is a good thing), so I am trying to envision why and how it must change.

If anyone already knows about a specific other country, please chime in. I will update later when I have some facts.

[flockofseagulls104]

Most of the European countries have stipulations that at least one parent needs to be connected to the country in some way. Canada and Mexico have essentially the same law we do.

The problem we have is that people from all over the world come here when they are pregnant to have their child on US soil to take advantage of this. Not so much for Canada and Mexico.

It is in the 14th Amendment, the same amendment they tried to use to remove Trump from the ballot. This amendment was to repair issues arising from the Civil War and slavery. The creators of the 14th Amendment could not have seen it used in these situations. It wasn't so easy to come here just to have a baby in the 1860's or 70's. However, it is the Constitution, and the text is very clear regarding birthright citizenship, even though at that time it was referring to freed slaves. So it will probably take an amendment to change it.

Currently, we have no way of knowing who is a citizen and who is not. The current federal government seems to want to do away with the concept of citizenship, based on the fact that there is no way to find out citizenship status for the general public, and by the millions of people they have allowed into this country extra-legally. The fed is hiding citizen status and not enforcing existing laws regarding citizenship. That is very true regarding election integrity. You know about the census issue. California itself may have a few more Congressional seats and electoral college votes than it should have.

[BackInTex]

I am learning about birthright citizenship in the US (it was added to the Constitution after the Civil War, to ensure that Black folks born here -- to parents who were brought against their will -- would be citizens). This makes me wonder about other places that don't have this right written down.

If we vote to amend the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship (this feels unlikely as it would require 75% of the states), or the Supreme Court re-interprets the 14th Amendment, I would have this question:

If being born in a place does not confer citizenship, what does? How would we all know that we are citizens? Could anyone be designated not a citizen at the whim of someone else in charge?

Is there a test? Are folks who can't pass the test due to mental defect exempt? I get that maybe children are not citizens, until they reach some age specified by the state or the Constitution (not sure if this is already in there, though).

I'm off to read about other nations and how they handle this. Birthright citizenship feels like one of the main defining qualities of American life, in that lots of different kinds of people live here (and I think that is a good thing), so I am trying to envision why and how it must change.

If anyone already knows about a specific other country, please chime in. I will update later when I have some facts.

As a programmer I see this as a multi-attribute permutation decision tree.

Attributes:
Father Citizen: Y or N
Mother Citizen: Y or N

Non-citizen Father legal resident in country: Y or N
Non-citizen Mother legal residen in country: Y or N

There are other situational attributes and many combinations but a few situations to think about are:

Mother or father are citizens and have residency in the US then the baby is a citizen. Nothing to question there. But, what if only one is a citizen and they have residency in the foreign country and the baby is born there.

Mother and Father are citizens of another country, mother and father are here illeagally but both have established residency here (need to define that). This is likely the majority of the cases and one I struggle with.

Mother and Father are citizens of another country, mother is here legally but temporarily (e.g. visiting on vacation) <-- This is a huge problem where pregnant women who are citizens of another country, reside in that country, but come here temporarily to drop the baby and current birthright citizenship makes the baby a citizen. Then they take the baby back to their home county and raise it. Twenty-five years later, that person (the child) has absolutely no connection to the US other than where they were for the first few days of their life, and they are citizens? This makes absolutely no sense. None, nada, zilch.

Absolute birth right citizenship is foolish. There has to be constraints.

And I do not believe in dual citizenship. That's a hard 'no' for me. At least once a person reaches majority (18 or 21), they need to pick on country to be a citizen of.

[Ritterskoop]

What y'all are saying makes me think that if we changed our policy by changing the Constitution, it would change the situation for future babies, and not those who already live here. It would have to be grandfathered in.

It sounds like the point would be to discourage folks from traveling here to have a baby, if they didn't intend to stay, and I get that.

If the point is to change the status of people who already live here legally, I'm not understanding that. If someone has a work visa or a student visa, I feel like they should be able to complete its terms. If someone is a naturalized citizen, I feel like they should be left alone.

Of COURSE those who are in prison for horrible crimes can be deported. I can't imagine why anyone would object to that. But they earn back much of their own keep, so that's not who is costing the taxpayers money.

Still studying on this. There are several categories of people involved, and I wish people wouldn't just lump them all in together.

[mrkelley23]

What y'all are saying makes me think that if we changed our policy by changing the Constitution, it would change the situation for future babies, and not those who already live here. It would have to be grandfathered in.

It sounds like the point would be to discourage folks from traveling here to have a baby, if they didn't intend to stay, and I get that.

If the point is to change the status of people who already live here legally, I'm not understanding that. If someone has a work visa or a student visa, I feel like they should be able to complete its terms. If someone is a naturalized citizen, I feel like they should be left alone.

Of COURSE those who are in prison for horrible crimes can be deported. I can't imagine why anyone would object to that. But they earn back much of their own keep, so that's not who is costing the taxpayers money.

Still studying on this. There are several categories of people involved, and I wish people wouldn't just lump them all in together.

A nice irony that the term "grandfathered" would be used in this thread, given its history.

I only learned this about the grandfather clause this year, adding it to lots of other phrases that I try (often unsuccessfully) to keep out of regular use on my part. The trouble with this one is I haven't found a good alternative that means the same thing.

[flockofseagulls104]

What y'all are saying makes me think that if we changed our policy by changing the Constitution, it would change the situation for future babies, and not those who already live here. It would have to be grandfathered in.

It sounds like the point would be to discourage folks from traveling here to have a baby, if they didn't intend to stay, and I get that.

If the point is to change the status of people who already live here legally, I'm not understanding that. If someone has a work visa or a student visa, I feel like they should be able to complete its terms. If someone is a naturalized citizen, I feel like they should be left alone.

Of COURSE those who are in prison for horrible crimes can be deported. I can't imagine why anyone would object to that. But they earn back much of their own keep, so that's not who is costing the taxpayers money.

Still studying on this. There are several categories of people involved, and I wish people wouldn't just lump them all in together.

In the original Constitution, citizenship was conferred upon those who had at least one parent who was already a citizen. (Yes, it was racist based on the culture of that time. Contrary to the race baiters of today, we have progressed beyond that, except for them.) That was changed by the 14th amendment with wording that was appropriate in their time, not knowing the advances in travel in the future.

One thing I've learned from being involved in the election integrity fight is that it is very difficult to make a law. And it has been demonstrated over and over that you can make the case that a law, poorly written, means the exact opposite of what its authors intended it to mean. That is what modern lawyers excel at, and easily swayed judges and juries go along with. And no law will cover 100% of every possibility. There will always be exceptions and situations that were not considered when writing the law.

So, yes, you have all these questions 'what about this, what about that?' All you can do is try to write a law that applies to 99% of all situations, if you are lucky. The other 1% needs to be adjudicated. Hopefully fairly and not politically on the whims of the current climate. However, most of the issues you are concerned about only exist because certain groups of people (from both political parties) obtained power and decided it was in their interests to flagrantly ignore the immigration laws that exist.

[Ritterskoop]

What y'all are saying makes me think that if we changed our policy by changing the Constitution, it would change the situation for future babies, and not those who already live here. It would have to be grandfathered in.

It sounds like the point would be to discourage folks from traveling here to have a baby, if they didn't intend to stay, and I get that.

If the point is to change the status of people who already live here legally, I'm not understanding that. If someone has a work visa or a student visa, I feel like they should be able to complete its terms. If someone is a naturalized citizen, I feel like they should be left alone.

Of COURSE those who are in prison for horrible crimes can be deported. I can't imagine why anyone would object to that. But they earn back much of their own keep, so that's not who is costing the taxpayers money.

Still studying on this. There are several categories of people involved, and I wish people wouldn't just lump them all in together.

A nice irony that the term "grandfathered" would be used in this thread, given its history.

I only learned this about the grandfather clause this year, adding it to lots of other phrases that I try (often unsuccessfully) to keep out of regular use on my part. The trouble with this one is I haven't found a good alternative that means the same thing.

Fascinating!

Of the less-than-ideal options, I propose "legacied," which I did not know until now was begging to become a verb.

[kroxquo]

What y'all are saying makes me think that if we changed our policy by changing the Constitution, it would change the situation for future babies, and not those who already live here. It would have to be grandfathered in.

It sounds like the point would be to discourage folks from traveling here to have a baby, if they didn't intend to stay, and I get that.

If the point is to change the status of people who already live here legally, I'm not understanding that. If someone has a work visa or a student visa, I feel like they should be able to complete its terms. If someone is a naturalized citizen, I feel like they should be left alone.

Of COURSE those who are in prison for horrible crimes can be deported. I can't imagine why anyone would object to that. But they earn back much of their own keep, so that's not who is costing the taxpayers money.

Still studying on this. There are several categories of people involved, and I wish people wouldn't just lump them all in together.

In the original Constitution, citizenship was conferred upon those who had at least one parent who was already a citizen. (Yes, it was racist based on the culture of that time. Contrary to the race baiters of today, we have progressed beyond that, except for them.) That was changed by the 14th amendment with wording that was appropriate in their time, not knowing the advances in travel in the future.

Where in the original text does the Constitution say that about citizenship? I don't recall ever seeing that, and I don't see it in a cursory glance through my copy of the document.

[Ritterskoop]

What y'all are saying makes me think that if we changed our policy by changing the Constitution, it would change the situation for future babies, and not those who already live here. It would have to be grandfathered in.

It sounds like the point would be to discourage folks from traveling here to have a baby, if they didn't intend to stay, and I get that.

If the point is to change the status of people who already live here legally, I'm not understanding that. If someone has a work visa or a student visa, I feel like they should be able to complete its terms. If someone is a naturalized citizen, I feel like they should be left alone.

Of COURSE those who are in prison for horrible crimes can be deported. I can't imagine why anyone would object to that. But they earn back much of their own keep, so that's not who is costing the taxpayers money.

Still studying on this. There are several categories of people involved, and I wish people wouldn't just lump them all in together.

In the original Constitution, citizenship was conferred upon those who had at least one parent who was already a citizen. (Yes, it was racist based on the culture of that time. Contrary to the race baiters of today, we have progressed beyond that, except for them.) That was changed by the 14th amendment with wording that was appropriate in their time, not knowing the advances in travel in the future.

Where in the original text does the Constitution say that about citizenship? I don't recall ever seeing that, and I don't see it in a cursory glance through my copy of the document.

Huh, yeah. I just searched the text at the Archives [https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript], and all of the uses of "citizen" are about what a citizen can or cannot do, not what is the definition of a citizen.

[Beebs52]

I say let's not worry about babies born here, since they do fit in under the 14th amendment. Other actors, bad, are more worthy of consideration.

[Ritterskoop]

I say let's not worry about babies born here, since they do fit in under the 14th amendment. Other actors, bad, are more worthy of consideration.

A good starting point.

[Appa23]

In the original Constitution, citizenship was conferred upon those who had at least one parent who was already a citizen. (Yes, it was racist based on the culture of that time. Contrary to the race baiters of today, we have progressed beyond that, except for them.) That was changed by the 14th amendment with wording that was appropriate in their time, not knowing the advances in travel in the future.

Where in the original text does the Constitution say that about citizenship? I don't recall ever seeing that, and I don't see it in a cursory glance through my copy of the document.

Huh, yeah. I just searched the text at the Archives [https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/ ... transcript], and all of the uses of "citizen" are about what a citizen can or cannot do, not what is the definition of a citizen.

The concept of citizenship was a matter of common law. The citizens of the several states at the time that the Constitution was adopted immediately became citizens of the United States. Those descended from that group of people also became citizens of the United States, as it was for the posterity of the citizens of the several states that the United States was created. Who else could become a citizen of the United States was left to the federal government, iwho created citizenship through other birthrights and naturalization. In the Dred Scott decision, the Court stated that because there was no concept of citizenship for those who had been brought to the country as slaves, it was determined that no such descendent of a slave, whether free or still enslaved, could ever become a citizen. It also specifically noted that no state could grant US citizenship, as that right was left to Congress. Of course, Congress then acted by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, essentially giving the finger to the Dred Scott decision.

I find this topic interesting, and I will relay a quick story about my son from about 3 months ago. He was hired by the corporate headquarters of a casino who had a location in St Louis, to assist with its social marketing. All was good, but I really had not thought about the fact that he would have to undergo a background investigation by the Missouri Department of Gaming. Still, this should not be an issue. Of course, one weekday afternoon, I get a call from him.

It seems like he was having his interview with the investigator, and she accused him of falsifying his paperwork. He was perplexed as to what she thought was a lie. On the form, he marked that he was a United States citizen. However, when she started the interview, she asked for his birth date and place of birth. When he said Seoul, South Korea, she accused him of lying about being an American citizen, and this would result in his denial of employment. When he tried to explain that he was the adopted child of American citizens, she claimed that it did not make him a citizen. At one point, she emphatically stated that you cannot be an unnaturalized citizen if you are born outside the United States. While he was freaking out that he was going to lose this job, he did have the clarity to say, "My dad is a lawyer. He can explain this to you." Hence the phone call to me.

When Flock said "Currently, we have no way of knowing who is a citizen and who is not," this really is not true. We can determine who is and who is not a citizen based on a variety of applicable documentation. For those claiming citizenship based on being born here, it is documented by a birth certificate. If you are the child of an American citizen, then you use both the birth certificate of the citizen parent and yourself. Similar for those like John McCain who were born in places like the Panama Canal Zone or whatever, where you present birth certificates and the applicable Congressional act that grants birth citizneship. If you are naturalized, then you have your naturalization decree.

And, if you are an international adoptee born in 2000, you use your birth certificate listing your parents and the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, noting that effective February 2001, a child of American citizens is a citizen whether you are a biological or adopted child. (Of course, you also can use your United States passport as evidence, even after its expiration, which what we did here, after I thoroughly educated the investigator.)

I actually tried to include the notation of citizenship in the adoption decrees of my older two children, knowing that it would prove to be helpful in the future, but I could not convince a district court judge to make such a proclamation of federal law.

I see no reason to take any action regarding the citizenship of babies who are born here, even if it is to illegal immigrants. The baby's legal status does not impact the illegal status of the parents. If the parents want to be with their child, as a parent should, then the baby must follow them back to their country of citizenship.

As far as dual citizenship, my children did have to renounce their South Korean citizenship, but it was done so that they would not be called into military duty upon reaching the age of 18.

[Ritterskoop]

I love getting info from someone who has dealt with a thing in person. Thank you.

[flockofseagulls104]

Let me clarify some points.

When Flock said "Currently, we have no way of knowing who is a citizen and who is not," this really is not true. We can determine who is and who is not a citizen based on a variety of applicable documentation. For those claiming citizenship based on being born here, it is documented by a birth certificate. If you are the child of an American citizen, then you use both the birth certificate of the citizen parent and yourself. Similar for those like John McCain who were born in places like the Panama Canal Zone or whatever, where you present birth certificates and the applicable Congressional act that grants birth citizneship. If you are naturalized, then you have your naturalization decree.

From the viewpoint of validating our Voter Rolls, I am relying on the testimony of dozens, if not hundreds of people, including Cleta Mitchell, head of the Election Integrity Network. Sure, you can prove your own citizenship, but I, as a private citizen, cannot request your birth certificate, and even if I could, I could not verify the citizenship status of people who are on the registry of legal electors (voter roll) en masse. The federal government makes it impossible by making that information pretty much classified, even to state and local governments, who, if they bother to get that information, do not have any motivation to act upon it. Other that to say that we have no reason to create new laws about illegal aliens voting because 'it is already against the law'.

And the major reason it is needed is because the democrat party fought tooth and nail to leave the question on 'are you a citizen?' out of the last census, in order to increase the number of House Seats and Electoral votes in States that are sanctuaries for Illegal Aliens. And to hopefully increase the number of democrat votes when they succeeded in allowing them to vote, either legally or illegally. However, that might backfire on them, because an ever-increasing percentage of the Hispanic vote, for one, is abandoning the democrats.

I see no reason to take any action regarding the citizenship of babies who are born here, even if it is to illegal immigrants. The baby's legal status does not impact the illegal status of the parents. If the parents want to be with their child, as a parent should, then the baby must follow them back to their country of citizenship.

That point might be valid if the parents 'accidentally' had their child in the US. But you and I both know that in the vast majority of these cases, it is planned and done intentionally to grant the child US Citizenship, whether the parents go back to their home country or not.

[Weyoun]

Let me clarify some points.

When Flock said "Currently, we have no way of knowing who is a citizen and who is not," this really is not true. We can determine who is and who is not a citizen based on a variety of applicable documentation. For those claiming citizenship based on being born here, it is documented by a birth certificate. If you are the child of an American citizen, then you use both the birth certificate of the citizen parent and yourself. Similar for those like John McCain who were born in places like the Panama Canal Zone or whatever, where you present birth certificates and the applicable Congressional act that grants birth citizneship. If you are naturalized, then you have your naturalization decree.

From the viewpoint of validating our Voter Rolls, I am relying on the testimony of dozens, if not hundreds of people, including Cleta Mitchell, head of the Election Integrity Network. Sure, you can prove your own citizenship, but I, as a private citizen, cannot request your birth certificate, and even if I could, I could not verify the citizenship status of people who are on the registry of legal electors (voter roll) en masse. The federal government makes it impossible by making that information pretty much classified, even to state and local governments, who, if they bother to get that information, do not have any motivation to act upon it. Other that to say that we have no reason to create new laws about illegal aliens voting because 'it is already against the law'.

And the major reason it is needed is because the democrat party fought tooth and nail to leave the question on 'are you a citizen?' out of the last census, in order to increase the number of House Seats and Electoral votes in States that are sanctuaries for Illegal Aliens. And to hopefully increase the number of democrat votes when they succeeded in allowing them to vote, either legally or illegally. However, that might backfire on them, because an ever-increasing percentage of the Hispanic vote, for one, is abandoning the democrats.

I see no reason to take any action regarding the citizenship of babies who are born here, even if it is to illegal immigrants. The baby's legal status does not impact the illegal status of the parents. If the parents want to be with their child, as a parent should, then the baby must follow them back to their country of citizenship.

That point might be valid if the parents 'accidentally' had their child in the US. But you and I both know that in the vast majority of these cases, it is planned and done intentionally to grant the child US Citizenship, whether the parents go back to their home country or not.

How do "you" know this? Most folks are just looking for work. I am sure this helps - but again I don't really see the problem.

SOMEONE has to fund Social Security, which magically can't be tossed aside, even if President Elon wants that to be the case.

[Beebs52]

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the- ... mmigrants/