Would ending birthright citizenship.....

[SMR 368]

Oh... well... Thats true...

However, from my perspective, it is the one, major source of it.

Are you suggesting that we should eliminate anything that causes divided allegiance?

[SMR 368]

The State Department disagrees, but I suppose they've become overrun by commies and you don't recognize their authority. I guess you were talking about the real US.

...dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

I disagree (ha, what a surprise). In my opinion, if this law is changed then citizenship-at-birth should be allowed for any child with at least one biological parent legally present in the US, LPR or not.

You need to recognize the distinction between dual citizenship and dual nationality. Dual citizenship often refers to a situation when two countries agree that their citizens can be dual citizens meaning that they have one passport, etc. Having two passports is a different situation.

[DukeOfYork 28]

From the article:

He said that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else."

Would that include those born to dual citizens? I don't know that we necessarily recognize dual citizenship, we merely look upon a US Citizen as a US Citizen and if they hold another citizenship, say Canadian, then we just ignore that.

But if we enacted the reforms George Will proposes, or better stated, if we interpreted the 14th Amendment correctly, would the subject of divided allegiance also come up for dual nationals who give birth to their children here?

I have to say it was an interesting article. I have often wondered why we still recognize anyone born in the US automatically as US citizens, bringing about the great paradox of not allowing illegal entry, but rewarding those who entered illegally by conferring citizenship upon their children born here. We closed our open borders nearly 100 years ago and with it the need to increase our population by way of granting citizenship to those born here. I know many European countries don't recognize people born in their borders to non-citizens. Spain is one that comes to mind. Since our president is intent on being as much like Europe as possible, would he consider this?

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Are you suggesting that we should eliminate anything that causes divided allegiance?

Nope, it was the previous poster who was saying that divided allegiance was a bad thing and I was simply pointing out what I thought was a major cause of it.

[scandal 951]

I was thinking more along the lines of the PhD student with his/her spouse who isn't an LPR yet but will most likely never leave the country. Graduate, get recruited by Bechtel/Cisco/whatever and stay. I didn't have visitors in mind.

So, hypothetically speaking, what's your view of this situation.

A Canadian who comes to the US for 4 years for his PhD along with his Canadian wife. They enter legally on student visas appropriate for studying and working in the US for the period in which they reside in the US. They have a child born in the US during that period. Following graduation and post-doc, the young family returns to Canada, in-status and never at any point in violation of their US visas or any other US law. The US-born child is born with dual citizenship and is raised in Canada from approximately age 2 until adulthood. The Canadian parents spend the rest of their lives in Canada, and never express any interest in returning to the US or 'exploiting' their US-citizen child to gain additional US benefits. No laws were ever broken, the stay in the US was solely for the purposes of study, there was never any conscious attempt to confer US citizenship on the child - it was an unintended byproduct of existing US law. The child grows up and decides to take advantage of his US citizenship to return and live in the US, and along the way sponsors new immigrants to the US: a wife and children, and following divorce, a wife from a second marriage.

I'm not asking you if this is all legal - it clearly is legal under existing US law. I'm asking if you think it *ought* to be legal.

I'm not really sure myself - if the law were changed to prevent this 'hypothetical' situation, I think I could see the logic in that. I'm rather glad that in my own circumstances the laws on the books are as they are.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So, hypothetically speaking, what's your view of this situation.

A Canadian who comes to the US for 4 years for his PhD along with his Canadian wife. They enter legally on student visas appropriate for studying and working in the US for the period in which they reside in the US. They have a child born in the US during that period. Following graduation and post-doc, the young family returns to Canada, in-status and never at any point in violation of their US visas or any other US law. The US-born child is born with dual citizenship and is raised in Canada from approximately age 2 until adulthood. The Canadian parents spend the rest of their lives in Canada, and never express any interest in returning to the US or 'exploiting' their US-citizen child to gain additional US benefits. No laws were ever broken, the stay in the US was solely for the purposes of study, there was never any conscious attempt to confer US citizenship on the child - it was an unintended byproduct of existing US law. The child grows up and decides to take advantage of his US citizenship to return and live in the US, and along the way sponsors new immigrants to the US: a wife and children, and following divorce, a wife from a second marriage.

I'm not asking you if this is all legal - it clearly is legal under existing US law. I'm asking if you think it *ought* to be legal.

I'm not really sure myself - if the law were changed to prevent this 'hypothetical' situation, I think I could see the logic in that. I'm rather glad that in my own circumstances the laws on the books are as they are.

What ought to have happened there, IMO, is when the child is born in the US he is a US citizen and not a Canadian citizen. Of course, the Canadian government would have to agree with that which I am sure they wouldn't. So while the US wouldn't recognize the child as anything but an American citizen, he could in actuality hold both passports. There's really no way for the US to 'make' other countries not recognize US-born children as their citizens if they choose to do so. What the US can (and should) do is refuse to recognize other citizenships and, when conditions warrant (say, when the adult USC who has lived in Canada all his life attempts to re-enter the US), require their adult citizens to relinquish one or the other.

[scandal 951]

What ought to have happened there, IMO, is when the child is born in the US he is a US citizen and not a Canadian citizen. Of course, the Canadian government would have to agree with that which I am sure they wouldn't. So while the US wouldn't recognize the child as anything but an American citizen, he could in actuality hold both passports. There's really no way for the US to 'make' other countries not recognize US-born children as their citizens if they choose to do so. What the US can (and should) do is refuse to recognize other citizenships and, when conditions warrant (say, when the adult USC who has lived in Canada all his life attempts to re-enter the US), require their adult citizens to relinquish one or the other.

US law can only dictate US benefits and obligations on persons it considers to be subject to US law. US law cannot tell another nation whether to grant its own benefits and obligations (e.g. citizenship). Hence, as you write, the US cannot make another nation not recognize a US born person as its citizen. There are countries which do require adult citizens to choose one citizenship and relinquish all others (e.g. my understanding that Thailand will technically require this of my wife, should she choose to naturalize in the US). I don't really see the point of this. If you're ok with a person retaining US citizenship, what difference does it make to you if s/he also keeps a foreign passport as well? Where's the harm to the US in this arrangement?

This also gets away from the original question of birthright citizenship. Clearly in my 'hypothetical' case above, you've expressed your view that the fact of birth on US soil to non-US citizen parents who are admitted legally yet temporarily to the US should confer US citizenship to that child. This is the law today, and you apparently believe it should remain so. Thanks for answering my question. Your concern about whether the child also does or does not retain a foreign citizenship is a distinct and separate matter, not directly related to birthright citizenship.

[Dan T 8]

Divided Allegiance is not caused by dual citizenship. Its caused by religion...

personally i dont see how or why citizenship of a particular nation implies or requires aligiance. willfully joining the armed forces of that country is a different issue. ireland has ended birthright citizenship as of 2004 and I applaud them for it. I think it would be a very intelligent thing for the US to emulate. marriage based immigration I am obviously in favor of and i do not see a connection between the 2 at all. if at any point the economy in ireland creates a better environment for me to earn a living than what exists in the US me and my irish wife will gladly move there at the drop of a hat provided our reentry and resumption of work in the US would not be compromised.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

It's my opinion that citizenship at birth should only be rewarded to children where -- at least -- either the mother or the father is a US citizen, not only a LPR.

And yes, can't believe I agree with anything the crazy guy puts out, but I too believe that the US should insist on foreigners who want to become US citizen to renounce their previous citizenship(s).

[justashooter 430]

It's my opinion that citizenship at birth should only be rewarded to children where -- at least -- either the mother or the father is a US citizen, not only a LPR.

that's how it is in germany.

[Danno 1,228]

It's rather stunning to me that something so clearly intended to protect former Slaves or others who had historical standing could be morphed into granting citizenship to border jumpers.

After we get this one ironed out we need to revisit the "Chain migration" laws.

When one person getting a visa leads to the immigration of the whole village... something is wrong.

[Martyshk 137]

I don't care about this, but....

I just want citizens (by birth in US) be required to take the same oath that naturalized citizens do.

That simple thing would satisfy my unrest.

[RDDIXON 0]

x

Edited April 3, 2010 by RDDIXON

[DEDixon 39]

IMO if a child is born in the US and either one of their biological parents is legally present in the US, they should have be a citizen. Oh and the US should ban dual citizenship too.

:thumbs:

[almaty 19]

if you are born in america..you are american....law of the land..and a good law