• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What type of citizenship criteria should the US use?

What type of Constitutional citizenship criteria should the US use?

  • Born on US soil or naturalized, period. (not diplomats' kids, foreign invading troop's kids)

    Votes: 7 25.9%

  • One parent is a US citizen (natural born or naturalized) and born anywhere in the world

    Votes: 12 44.4%

  • Both parents are US citizens (natural born or naturalized) and born anywhere in the world

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • One parent is a natural born citizen, born anywhere in the world

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Both parents are natural born citizens, born anywhere in the world

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • One parent is a citizen but still must be born on US soil

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • Both parents are citizens but still must be born on US soil

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 5 18.5%
  • Total voters
    27
  • This poll will close: .
daeler said:
Sure, the discussion is asking what you would want it changed to. While I don't really have any issues with the current setup I think it could be updated.
Click to expand...

I think that the OP was about changing jus soli as it pertains to births here. Not so much about children born to citizens overseas.

WW
 
The 14th Amendment really made a mess of things by transitioning citizenship to Jus Soli and it doesn’t even make sense. I’d eliminate it and return strictly to Jus Sanguinis.
 
Napoleon said:
The 14th Amendment really made a mess of things by transitioning citizenship to Jus Soli and it doesn’t even make sense. I’d eliminate it and return strictly to Jus Sanguinis.
Click to expand...

We were jus soli prior to the 14th Amendment. The children of immigrants were citizens.

WW
 
Napoleon said:
The 14th Amendment really made a mess of things by transitioning citizenship to Jus Soli and it doesn’t even make sense. I’d eliminate it and return strictly to Jus Sanguinis.
Click to expand...
I don't think you ever had citizenship based on jus sanguinis but, that aside, would you see citizenship of the parents as an absolute requirement...one, both? What about legal residents?
 
Callen said:
I don't think you ever had citizenship based on jus sanguinis but, that aside, would you see citizenship of the parents as an absolute requirement...one, both? What about legal residents?
Click to expand...
In the context of birthright citizenship I would say at least one biological parent must be a citizen. After all, how can one have a “birthright” to something that isn’t inherited? I would still offer a path to naturalization for legal residents.
 

Because jus soli (birth by soil) is considered a birthright that has applied since the constitution was signed and extends back into British Common Law from whence out laws were derived in many cases.

WW
 
WorldWatcher said:
Because jus soli (birth by soil) is considered a birthright that has applied since the constitution was signed and extends back into British Common Law from whence out laws were derived in many cases.

WW
Click to expand...
And which has required oodles of legislation contrary to Jus Soli and which arguably creates equal protection problems to fill the gaps that it creates. Jus Sanguinis is a far simpler solution.
 
You left off the imprint of trump’s asshole.
 
Anyone born on US soil, or someone born anywhere in the world with at least 1 American citizen parent.
 
I agree but I would also have that birth rite extended to babies born of legal residents.
 
Napoleon said:
In the current landscape, some people have to be born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. and others don’t.
Click to expand...
I'm still not clear on what you mean. My understanding is that only diplomats, families of diplomats and those on temporary visas are excluded. I'm OK with babies born to at least one citizen of Canada or babies born to those with permanent legal landed immigrant status. That's it. Where they are born is not an issue with me.
 
Callen said:
I doubt it would ever be the law that one parent must be born in the States but maybe that one parent must be a citizen.
Click to expand...
I'd go with a child born to a Woman who is a citizen of the U.S. or legal permanent resident in the U.S. should acquire the same citizenship/status as that of the Mother or dual citizenship if the Father is a U.S. citizen.
 
I may have misunderstood what you were saying. Is the location of lawful residency of the biological parent(s) - regardless of their citizenship status - the root source of a right to natural born citizenship in your ideal system?
 
Napoleon said:
I may have misunderstood what you were saying. Is the location of lawful residency of the biological parent(s) - regardless of their citizenship status - the root source of a right to natural born citizenship in your ideal system?
Click to expand...
I'm saying at least one parent must be a citizen or a legal landed immigrant. A citizen may be residing in a different country BUT a landed immigrant must have permanent residency in Canada.

I also have strong opinions on second and third generation citizens living permanently out side of Canada who have never had permanent residency in Canada. Their citizenship should be revoked.
 
So the common thread is they have lawful permanent residence. Interesting yarn on expats.
 
I think the current rules regarding the children of US citizens born abroad are pretty good.
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default...ildren_of_US_Citizens_Born_Outside_the_US.pdf

There are residency requirements in some cases, which means there's an interest in the success of the country, and in some cases the citizenship is automatic. In the cases where it isn't, the process is far easier than naturalization, but it still must be undertaken.

For children born here in the US, one citizen/national should be sufficient regardless of the other parent or two green card holders.
 
Napoleon said:
So the common thread is they have lawful permanent residence. Interesting yarn on expats.
Click to expand...
No I specifically said that the parent , if a citizen, can live in another country.

Callen said:
I'm saying at least one parent must be a citizen or a legal landed immigrant. A citizen may be residing in a different country BUT a landed immigrant must have permanent residency in Canada.
Click to expand...
 
stealthycat said:
it was never the intent of birthright citizenship for Russia to human traffic tens of thousands of women and for $30,000 they can get to the USA in their 3rd trimester and have their baby on USA soil and boom !! Anchor baby

never the intent
Click to expand...

Not the topic.
 
Lethargic Aptitude said:
This is pointless until we regain our country.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is. SCOTUS will rule on it. Then we'll see how TACO responds.

The reason I keep asking for a discussion (in Congress, nationally) on the pros and cons of different types of citizenship is that IMO any changes should go thru the proper process. Is birthright citizenship best? If so, why?

Now if you mean that no matter what SCOTUS rules TACO will just do whatever he wants anyway, well, you do have a point.
 
daeler said:
I think if it gets amended we could switch to a "from this point on" stance of at least one parent being born in America and the child is born here with a provision of fast tracking those born outside of America for citizenship.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that would be the case. Why would it be retroactive?
 
WorldWatcher said:
I think that the OP was about changing jus soli as it pertains to births here. Not so much about children born to citizens overseas.

WW
Click to expand...

That is part of it. I even included it in the poll options.

I really just added it for clarification but of course if there's an objection to that criteria, it's part of the discussion.
 
Lursa said:
I'm pretty sure that would be the case. Why would it be retroactive?
Click to expand...
The legalities, if they don't point specific wording in there someone will argue that it could be.

I mean they are currently arguing the wording now and it is pretty specific.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.