What type of citizenship criteria should the US use?

[stealthycat]

Not the topic.

exactly the topic

you can't discuss what the criteria should be without discussing the situations in which babies are born in the USA

The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, was a direct response to the Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not be citizens.

Right ?



This human trafficking/birth tourism was NEVER the intent of the 14th

the SC needs to rule as such, which is why I liked none of your answers and chose "other"

 

[Lursa]

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?

I dont think the children of legal residents would be citizens, legally.

Also, would we need different criteria for the infants born to foreign students here legally? People with green cards? Tourist here legally but give birth? Etc?

IMO that's a huge can of worms. IMO it should be at least one parent is a citizen, natural born or naturalized. If a family moves here legally from another country, with minor children, those minor kids arent citizens either. What's the current process for them? Do they have to take the naturalization exam at 18? I dont know this. Anyone?

 

[Lursa]

exactly the topic

you can't discuss what the criteria should be without discussing the situations in which babies are born in the USA

The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, was a direct response to the Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision, which declared that Black people could not be citizens.

Right ?



This human trafficking/birth tourism was NEVER the intent of the 14th

the SC needs to rule as such, which is why I liked none of your answers and chose "other"

So acknowledge it as a bullet point pro or con and move on. Articulate an argument, dont complain. Dont post it as a complaint...we've seen it from you ad infintum already. You've been told that if people consent to come here and give birth, that's not human trafficking, so spare us the hysteria.

 

[Lursa]

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.

That's fine.

 

[Callen]

I dont think the children of legal residents would be citizens, legally.

Also, would we need different criteria for the infants born to foreign students here legally? People with green cards? Tourist here legally but give birth? Etc?

IMO that's a huge can of worms. IMO it should be at least one parent is a citizen, natural born or naturalized. If a family moves here legally from another country, with minor children, those minor kids arent citizens either. What's the current process for them? Do they have to take the naturalization exam at 18? I dont know this. Anyone?

I specifically said babies born to legal landed immigrants. That automatically excludes anyone in the country on a visa which means students, tourists and work visas. Landed immigrant is very different , it means you are in the country legally as a permanent resident.

"A landed immigrant in Canada is someone who has been granted permanent residence status, meaning they have the right to live and work in the country permanently. This status is a step towards Canadian citizenship, but the person is not yet a Canadian citizen. "

 

[Decypher]

An interesting question. I am a naturalised US citizen but now live in Ireland. My daughter was born here a couple of months ago, but I assume she is entitled to US citizenship. I must go to the embassy and make sure.

 

[Gaius46]

jus soli is the law of the land and I'm fine with it though I can understand why people would
want to have a conversation about whether it makes sense provided they recognize that it is the law of the land.

If I were to remake things I'd require one parent to be a citizen and not care where the child was born. I'd also do away with the natural born citizen requirement to be POTUS and allow any citizen to be able to be President.

I'd also make legal immigration and naturalization easier than it currently is.

 

[Lursa]

I specifically said babies born to legal landed immigrants. That automatically excludes anyone in the country on a visa which means students, tourists and work visas. Landed immigrant is very different , it means you are in the country legally as a permanent resident.

"A landed immigrant in Canada is someone who has been granted permanent residence status, meaning they have the right to live and work in the country permanently. This status is a step towards Canadian citizenship, but the person is not yet a Canadian citizen. "

Yeah, I didnt see "landed" in the post I responded to but in any case, I dont know ALL the legal aspects for ANY of those other statuses that distinguishes them from each other. That includes being here legally but not a citizen. Permanent resident is also not a citizen. I dont even know if those apply to the US.

I just know natural born and naturalized citizen. The rest is a very complex "bucket" it seems.

 

[Ahlevah]

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.

What made a mess of things was Dred Scott v. Sanford, which said that “persons of African descent” could never be American citizens. In the early days of the Republic, before states had codified legal systems, they tended to defer to the courts and English common law when it came to settling disputes. Jus soli was a recognized legal concept under that framework. What the 14th Amendment did was constitutionalize that aspect of the law and apply it to all states because some of them were statutorily attempting to undermine it by passing discriminatory laws. A good example is 19th Century California laws against “foreign” (largely Chinese and Mexican) gold miners.

I find it almost comical that nativist “conservative” Heritage Foundation types, who are usually keen on invoking originalist and historical arguments when it comes to understanding and interpreting the Constitution, now want to deny that basic truth. I mean, they’d quick to trot out a 14th Century decree by King Edward III if it supported their desired narrative and not a pure understanding of jus soli under the common law.

What their argument does is center around a misinterpretation of the Jurisdiction Clause of the 14th Amendment. Under English common law, unless you were a diplomat or a member of a foreign occupying army, you were under the jurisdiction of the Crown. You couldn’t tell the lord of the manor, “I am so sorry, My Lord, but you have no lawful jurisdiction over me, because I am a simple traveler making my way from Edinburgh to Rouen to visit my dear, great-uncle, whom I haven’t seen in many years and is nearing his final breath.” You were under the King’s jurisdiction, and if you had a child on his territory while “just passing through,” the child was considered an English subject. That was the case until the British Nationality Act of 1981 became law. There would be no reason to change that aspect of British law if it didn’t apply.

We can’t overrule our constitution with a similar nationality or citizenship law. The Constitution is very specific. It says “all persons.” But the revisionists won’t acknowledge that. What they need to do is turn “all persons” into “all persons except“ while expanding those exceptions as they ignore the historical record. I prefer we leave the law alone. It makes more sense to grant citizenship to people who were born here and whose mothers wanted them to be born here than people who are automatically conferred citizenship by happenstance due to parentage but who may never set foot on American soil at any point in their lives.

 

[Napoleon]

What made a mess of things was Dred Scott v. Sanford, which said that “persons of African descent” could never be American citizens. In the early days of the Republic, before states had codified legal systems, they tended to defer to the courts and English common law when it came to settling disputes. Jus soli was a recognized legal concept under that framework. What the 14th Amendment did was constitutionalize that aspect of the law and apply it to all states because some of them were statutorily attempting to undermine it by passing discriminatory laws. A good example is 19th Century California laws against “foreign” (largely Chinese and Mexican) gold miners.

I find it almost comical that nativist “conservative” Heritage Foundation types, who are usually keen on invoking originalist and historical arguments when it comes to understanding and interpreting the Constitution, now want to deny that basic truth. I mean, they’d quick to trot out a 14th Century decree by King Edward III if it supported their desired narrative and not a pure understanding of jus soli under the common law.

What their argument does is center around a misinterpretation of the Jurisdiction Clause of the 14th Amendment. Under English common law, unless you were a diplomat or a member of a foreign occupying army, you were under the jurisdiction of the Crown. You couldn’t tell the lord of the manor, “I am so sorry, My Lord, but you have no lawful jurisdiction over me, because I am a simple traveler making my way from Edinburgh to Rouen to visit my dear, great-uncle, whom I haven’t seen in many years and is nearing his final breath.” You were under the King’s jurisdiction, and if you had a child on his territory while “just passing through,” the child was considered an English subject. That was the case until the British Nationality Act of 1981 became law. There would be no reason to change that aspect of British law if it didn’t apply.

We can’t overrule our constitution with a similar nationality or citizenship law. The Constitution is very specific. It says “all persons.” But the revisionists won’t acknowledge that. What they need to do is turn “all persons” into “all persons except“ while expanding those exceptions as they ignore the historical record. I prefer we leave the law alone. It makes more sense to grant citizenship to people who were born here and whose mothers wanted them to be born here than people who are automatically conferred citizenship by happenstance due to parentage but who may never set foot on American soil at any point in their lives.

The problem is that it doesn’t just say “all persons” does it. It says, critically, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” Congress has passed oodles of legislation since to overrule those key constitutional requirements - most notably “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

 

[Lursa]

The problem is that it doesn’t just say “all persons” does it. It says, critically, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” Congress has passed oodles of legislation since to overrule those key constitutional requirements - most notably “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

What are some examples?

 

[Napoleon]

What are some examples?

The Indian Citizenship Act. The Immigration and Nationality Act.

 

[Lursa]

The Indian Citizenship Act. The Immigration and Nationality Act.

Please provide the specifics for each of those that apply here. I'm not going fishing thru entire legislation. Quotes to applicable sections/text.

 

[Napoleon]

Please provide the specifics for each of those that apply here. I'm not going fishing thru entire legislation. Quotes to applicable sections/text.

I don’t take demands. But if you want to know:

1) One of the immediate problems of the 14th was what to do with Native Americans. Tribal lands are sovereign, ie not within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Indian Citizenship Act waives the constitutional requirement that the person be born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. for Native Americans.

2) The Immigration and Nationality Act waives the same constitutional requirement for children born abroad to a citizen parent.

 

[noonereal]

Please explain your answer.

What's to explain? The third option is the correct opinion to have.

 

[Lursa]

I don’t take demands. But if you want to know:

1) One of the immediate problems of the 14th was what to do with Native Americans. Tribal lands are sovereign, ie not within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Indian Citizenship Act waives the constitutional requirement that the person be born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. for Native Americans.

2) The Immigration and Nationality Act waives the same constitutional requirement for children born abroad to a citizen parent.

So you say.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

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

MAGA Republicans are filling Americans with propaganda, tainting the national discussion on a myriad of subjects. As long as that is tolerated, everybody's citizenship is threatened.

Bring back proper channels first. Congress now equates the Russian Federal Assembly in its ineptitude. And it is getting worse by the day. It is likely by this time next month you will have almost forgotten this endeavor to facilitate discussion.

 

[Visbek]

We have a legal process for changing the definition in the 14th Amendment...so should we do so?

No.

America is, by design, a nation of immigrants. Sadly, this periodically encourages outbursts of racism and xenophobia, like we see today. So far, this has always faded. I see little reason to drastically alter the Constitution, and fabric of the nation, to indulge America's worst impulses.

Why not have a national discussion and see what's best for the US?

Because the people who want to change the 14th Amendment aren't interested in any discussion. All they want to do is ram their racist policies down everyone else's throat, by any means necessary. They aren't even trying to amend the Constitution.

We also see how the xenophobes almost always make their claims in bad faith. Many are themselves descendants of immigrants, who faced exactly the same kind of discrimination they impose upon others. We see how the xenophobes recycle the same lies over hundreds of years -- e.g. the Know Nothings of the 19th Century also claimed that migrants caused crime and would Destroy The Nation. We see how they piously claim to care deeply about immigration law, then gleefully trample the law and the Constitution in order to get their way. The list goes on.

Many people can have rational discussions about the structure of, and potential changes to, existing immigration law. However, I refuse to pretend that racists are open to any such reasoned debate.

 

[Ahlevah]

The problem is that it doesn’t just say “all persons” does it. It says, critically, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” Congress has passed oodles of legislation since to overrule those key constitutional requirements - most notably “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Well, no, Congress has not “passed oodles of legislation since to overrule those key constitutional requirements.” In fact, Congress hasn’t passed any legislation that overrules any constitutional provision, key or otherwise. And a Trumpian decree certainly wouldn’t do it. The only way to “overrule” the Constitution is to amend it. “Under the jurisdiction thereof” has a very specific meaning under that document. It’s why our prisons are populated with foreign nationals, illegal or otherwise, but not one accredited foreign diplomat whose country has not waived diplomatic immunity. So get back to me just as soon as Congress exempts illegal aliens or foreign tourists on U.S. territory from U.S. jurisdiction.

 

[Lursa]

No.

America is, by design, a nation of immigrants. Sadly, this periodically encourages outbursts of racism and xenophobia, like we see today. So far, this has always faded. I see little reason to drastically alter the Constitution, and fabric of the nation, to indulge America's worst impulses.


Because the people who want to change the 14th Amendment aren't interested in any discussion. All they want to do is ram their racist policies down everyone else's throat, by any means necessary. They aren't even trying to amend the Constitution.

We also see how the xenophobes almost always make their claims in bad faith. Many are themselves descendants of immigrants, who faced exactly the same kind of discrimination they impose upon others. We see how the xenophobes recycle the same lies over hundreds of years -- e.g. the Know Nothings of the 19th Century also claimed that migrants caused crime and would Destroy The Nation. We see how they piously claim to care deeply about immigration law, then gleefully trample the law and the Constitution in order to get their way. The list goes on.

Many people can have rational discussions about the structure of, and potential changes to, existing immigration law. However, I refuse to pretend that racists are open to any such reasoned debate.

I thank you for your well-thought out reply.

Is just because we're a "nation of immigrants" a legitimate reason tho? I dont accept "we were founded as a Christian nation" for legal or socially-focused legislation.

Not only that, people can still immigrate here legally and become citizens, we're not ending that. Nor does it close the door on one parent being a citizen.

What are the advantages of birthright citizenship, specifically?

 

[Gatsby]

I would grant birthright citizenship to:

• Anyone born on US soil (aside from those rare exceptions).
• Anyone born abroad to two US citizen parents who have each lived in the US for 10 years.
• Anyone born abroad to one US citizen parent who has lived in the US for 20 years.

 

[Ahlevah]

One of the immediate problems of the 14th was what to do with Native Americans. Tribal lands are sovereign, ie not within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Indian Citizenship Act waives the constitutional requirement that the person be born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. for Native Americans.

Congress chose to grant citizenship to Native Americans previously understood to have been excluded from it by birth. Congress can do that.

 

[Napoleon]

Congress chose to grant citizenship to Native Americans previously understood to have been excluded from it by birth. Congress can do that.

Then you agree that the Constitution can be overridden.

 

[Lursa]

I would grant birthright citizenship to:

• Anyone born on US soil (aside from those rare exceptions).
• Anyone born abroad to two US citizen parents who have each lived in the US for 10 years.
• Anyone born abroad to one US citizen parent who has lived in the US for 20 years.

I'm curious...why does it matter where a US citizen lived? Many citizens do travel, live abroad, work abroad, are in the military, etc. If a US citizen, they are a US citizen...would there be other conditions on citizens? Because this seems to invent one.

OTOH, placing the identity criteria on the person born in another country is pretty clear. "Yes born in another country. To one or both US citizen parents." No one has to track down the residencies of the parents over the yrs.

One interesting thing is that it could severely limit the rights of a military person in another country who produces a child (man or woman) with a foreign national. Some of our service members are 18-20 yrs old. That was brought up by someone earlier, about their rights to the kid.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I believe strongly in birthright citizenship, but for the sake of this question, I'll add a cavaet - if the child's parents voted for Donald Trump, they should be immediately deported to Russia, along with their parents.