Ritterskoop wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 1:57 pm
kroxquo wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 8:45 am
flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2024 11:03 pm
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.