Yet another reason I was confused: My sister was born in England while my parents were on a working vacation. They registered her birth at the U.S. Embassy and my sister became a dual citizen. However, just like the story you relate, at some point in her life she was hassled by the U.S. to pick one or the other. I think that she managed to keep her dual citizenship despite being greatly discouraged by the U.S. govt. For some reason I thought dual citizenships were subsequently abolished, but that is clearly not the case. I’ll have to ask dear sis what her status is.
How can you possibly post that as a souce with the page title as “Duel Nationality”? What does that mean? Your two nationalities must fight one another for which gets to claim you?
Ah, just kidding, but I found the title typo to be quite funny. 
Polycarp, Monti, I think the term you’re looking for is ius sangui. I’m not up to nationality law, but what I have gathered it looks like in Europe mostly the principle is a watered down ius sangui, i.e. if you’re born on the soil you don’t immediately gain citizenship, but it is easy to get once you’ve stayed there legally during your entire childhood. Only Germany has a very stringent ius sangui: it is almost impossible to become German citizen if your parents aren’t, while people who are of remote German descent (a lot of Eastern Europeans) can easily become german citizens, even if they have no other connection (do not speak german etc.). France OTOH may have something close to a ius soli. I haven’t checked these facts, so you’re on your own here.
Well, it’s my understanding that in Canada, if you’re born here you’re a citizen, unless your parents are here as diplomats. The Citizenship Act provides:
(My emphasis - I would read that provision as saying that both conditions must be met for the child to be denied citizenship.)
I_Dig_Bad_Boys, I have changed the title of this thread from Dopers…care to help me debunk a commonly held myth? to Crossing the border to give birth [new title]. In the future please try to choose more descriptive thread titles so people can tell whether they might be interested in reading it without having to open it first.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
That’s correct. The Citizenship Act provides:
However, that automatic right of citizenship is only good for one generation. If the child lives outside of Canada and has children, those second generation children are Canadian citizens initially, but to maintain that citizenship they have to take up residency in Canada by the time they turn 28.
The above comments, and those in the previous post, are not intended as legal advice about your personal situation, but simply to comment on a matter of public interest and discussion. If you need legal advice about your own situation, you should contact a lawyer.
It seems that most of the posts have strayed from the OP. Yes there are quite a number of pregnant Mexican women that attempt to enter the US in order to have their child obtain US citizenship. I think the numbers are lower than what some of the articles try to claim. Plus a pregnant woman entering the US on a valid visa is not an illegal and there are many that travel legally to the US for the same purpose.
BTW all children born in Mexico are automatically Mexican citizens. There are a lot of people that come here for the birth of a child to facilitate property ownership which is restrictive in some ways to foreigners.
Hermann, wouldn’t a number “much higher” than a “vast majority” be pretty close to a totality? Do you remember who made that L.A. County claim?
As regards your question re retention of nationality, at least in the case of Mexico a person may acquire foreign citizenship (either by birthright or otherwise) and not have to renounce their Mexican citizenship. This is a fairly new provision; previously the voluntary acceptance of a foreign nationality (including by not renouncing such foreign nationality upon reaching majority of age, while having the right to acquire it) was cause for loss of Mexican citizenship.
Noting the obvious, however, any person who acquires U.S. citizenship was not an illegal immigrant, and therefore the OP doesn’t apply.
And for what it’s worth, a minor U.S. citizen generally cannot sponsor his or her adult parents in order that they attain some legal status.
Also, the OP says that, according to the cited myth, the intent of having an “anchor baby” is to qualify for Medicare. The motive of pregnant women intending to give birth on U.S. soil would be hard to measure; and in any case, that makes the general assumptions that (1) the person has contributed Medicare taxes for 10 years, (2) has therefore had qualifying employment for that much time, and (3) is at least 65 years old. In other words, has been a productive member of society.
Hermann, wouldn’t a number “much higher” than a “vast majority” be pretty close to a totality? Do you remember who made that L.A. County claim?
As regards your question re retention of nationality, at least in the case of Mexico a person may acquire foreign citizenship (either by birthright or otherwise) and not have to renounce their Mexican citizenship. This is a fairly new provision; previously the voluntary acceptance of a foreign nationality (including by not renouncing such foreign nationality upon reaching majority of age, while having the right to acquire it) was cause for loss of Mexican citizenship.
Noting the obvious, however, any person who acquires U.S. citizenship was not an illegal immigrant, and therefore the OP doesn’t apply.
And for what it’s worth, a minor U.S. citizen generally cannot sponsor his or her adult parents in order that they attain some legal status.
Also, the OP says that, according to the cited myth, the intent of having an “anchor baby” is to qualify for Medicare. The motive of pregnant women intending to give birth on U.S. soil would be hard to measure; and in any case, that makes the general assumptions that (1) the person has contributed Medicare taxes for 10 years, (2) has therefore had qualifying employment for that much time, and (3) is at least 65 years old. In other words, has been a productive member of society.
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/619.htm
And that was back in 1995.
That argument is sort of a red herring. If medicare was the only welfare program that these newborn citizens were “entitled” to, it wouldn’t be quite so bad…but…
These babies are eligible for all sorts of welfare programs, like AFDC, WIC, food stamps, subsidized housing, free school breakfast, free school lunch, subsized healthcare and Head Start.
And since newborns can’t cash the welfare check every month, guess who really gets the money?
Parkland hospital in Dallas delivers more babies than any other place in the world…due the reason you are discussing. Maybe they keep stats.
Forgot to mention one thing…Parkland is also the public hospital, so they don’t get mad when you can’t pay.
Aliens sneak over, get great medical care (parkland is renowned) for free and take governmental help for their American babies.
Two comments
(1) Although I can’t find links on the web there have been a couple of studies that have shown that immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they consume in services. The figures I can lay my hands on are a bit old but in 1991-1992, there were 2.3 million new immigrants in Los Angeles county (mostly from Mexico and Asia) who paid in about $4.3 billion in taxes and consumed $947 million in public services.
Here another link on this.
http://www.ailf.org/polrep/2002/pr008.htm
So, on average, it is safe to say that immigrants (both documented and undocumented) are burdening taxpayers.
(2) my wife’s family all have dual citizenship, one sister just got it in 1998. We’ll probably get our two-year old set up soon. It is just a matter of using the right passport to enter in the right country.
Hey, my mom works at Parkland. I’ll ask her.
oops…that should read
So, on average, it is safe to say that immigrants (both documented and undocumented) are NOT burdening taxpayers.
one little word changes so much.
Reading back, my post sounds really cynical. If you ignore the selfish ‘money’ part of this discussion, Parkland is doing great work.
read about it.
Wow…I had NO idea the extent this reached to.I wasn’t aware of the scope of this reality.
Thanks for all the info.
And biblio–sorry for the nondescriptive title.I will do better in the future.
And the reason I asked (in case you want to know)was because I used to work with a Hispanic guy who glorified the American government for letting his child be born here and become a citizen while he stayed somewhat illegal(he was on a work visa at the time).He praised the government for handing out medicaid and other subsidies to his poor family,which included himself and his wife,their five kids(only one of whom was a citizen),his parents and his grandfather.
IDBB
Hermann - I don’t mean to pick nits, but that cite is from House floor testimony and is unsupported. I wonder if there are any census data or reliable statistics that support the claim. Obviously, “reliable” is a matter of taste, but still…
As for the “red herring,” I was responding to the specific assertion in the OP. Again, the statistically supported conclusions made for and against Prop 187 in California may or may not be acceptable to either one of us. But back to the questions raised in the OP, for which there are probably not universally accepted data: Does the fact that a child has U.S. citizenship, when the parent(s) is/are illegally present in the U.S., affect the availability of public aid to the child? And as has been asked in the related threads in Great Debates, how big is the financial burden on taxpayers for aid to anchor babies?
Conservative pub Free Republic repeats the yearly estimate of 200,000 anchor babies born in the U.S. This includes all countries, and does not consider the legal status of the mother.
This isn’t such a small hijack; “on a work visa” is not at all the same thing as “somewhat illegal.” I’m sure the several hundred attorneys who work across the country for the immigration law firm where I work would hate to think they were enabling their clients to circumvent the law; it might put their bar memberships in jeopardy. And since many categories of work visas allow for stays of several years or more, with spouses and children, it’s reasonable to expect that at least some people on work visas, or legally present as dependents on their spouses’ work visas, will have additional children during their legal stay in the U.S. Unless these children are born to foreign diplomats, they are U.S. citizens by birth. (Children of diplomats are not born subject to U.S. jurisdiction, so they are not citizens by birth.)
Some other countries don’t recognize dual citizenship; so far, India is one of them, although I’ve read that may change soon. So when Indians on work visas have kids in the U.S., they frequently ask us if they can renounce their children’s U.S. citizenship. The U.S. position is that one cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of a minor. I suppose as a practical matter, if you wanted your kids to have Indian citizenship, you could just tell the Indian government you’d done so and get the kids Indian passports, but if they decided later that they wanted to return to the U.S., they can just show their birth certificates and apply for U.S. passports. Having children in the U.S. doesn’t entitle anyone to any sort of automatic legal status in the U.S., though; the kid can’t file for a green card for you until he/she turns 21, which seems like an awfully long-term strategy to be of any practical use.
I understand Canada’s policies are similar to ours; I’ve had to help Canadian clients address these matters when they have children in the U.S. If you are born to at least one Canadian parent outside Canada, the Canadian consulate can help you register that child as a Canadian citizen. (In fact, my grandmother was born in Canada, and after I did some research, my father and aunt were very surprised to discover that they are most likely dual citizens without even realizing it.) The U.S. does the same thing for its citizens residing abroad, and issues a Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen, which can be used for all the same citizenship-related purposes as a U.S. birth certificate (passport application, voter registration, etc.)
The U.S. allows, but does not encourage, dual citizenship; you can find info here on related topics:
Dual nationality: http://www.travel.state.gov/dualnationality.html
Renunciation of citizenship: http://www.travel.state.gov/renunciation.html
Renunciation of citizenship and dual nationality: http://www.travel.state.gov/loss.html
Renunciation of citizenship and residence in the U.S.: http://www.travel.state.gov/pr_renun.html
Renunciation of citizenship and foreign military service: http://www.travel.state.gov/military_service.html
IANAL, but I deal with these issues all the time in my professional capacity.
Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal
Not at all.
I would be interested to know what the studies considered “taxes paid” to be. I would also be interested in what the study considers “services used” to mean.
I would venture to guess that most illegals are paid in cash, and therefore do not pay taxes. I would also guess that most legal immigrants tend to congregate in the bottom 50% of the average income in this country, and the bottom 50% of income earners pay only a small fraction of taxes.
Oh, heres a link about the LA county situation where they discover that up to 28% of all workers in the county are working under the table, not paying any taxes.