No, it has not been changed.
If the 14th Amendment gets revised, I’m sure we’ll all hear about it.
IIRC, quite a few years ago, Canadians who gave birth in the USA, the American government made the child choose their nationality when they turned 18.
I’m assuming this does not happen / not required any more?
Congress could modify (and has in the past modified) the standards for jus sanguinis citizenship – in theory, it could completely void it. But jus soli citizenship is spelled out in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and it 3would take amending the Constitution to eliminate or modify it.
If your friend left the US before h/she was 18, is there any requirement that he/she return to the US for some period of time after “x” years of living in Canada?
By the way, insofar as we can nail down the meaning at all, “natural born” means a citizen by virtue of birth, as opposed to by naturalization or by special provision of law (e.g., "“17. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Arnold Schwarzenegger shall be deemed to be a natural-born citizen of the United States.”)
Not only is it possible to become a natural born citizen at a point after birth, but there are a goodly number of senior citizens who did. If one was born in Puerto Rico between 1941 and 1952 and did not acquire jus sanguinis citizenship from one’s parents, one was not an American citizen thereby – it was an unincorporated territory. But in 1952 American citizenship was awarded to Puertoriqueños retroactively to January 1941. Which meant that any kid 11 or younger became a natural born citizen at that point.
More apropos than John McCain is George Romney (father of Mitt and former Republican Presidential candidate in his own right), who was born in one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico of Mexican resident parents. There was no doubt that he was eligible to run.
No but . . .
Debate in Congress is muddy as to whether they intended the 14th Amendment applied to anchor babies and the best we can decipher is that some congressmen thought it did and some thought it didn’t when they voted on it. Historically, the 14th Amendment was written to ensure the Civil Rights Bill of 1866 was constitutional but the Civil Rights Bill stated
while the 14th Amendment changed “not subject to any foreign power” to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
The landmark case Ark that established the principal of anchor babies and the way the decision was written it certainly implied that a woman could walk across the border, drop a baby out and the baby would be a US citizen. Both the decision and dissent go to great lengths to provide a history of English common law of how citizenship was determined. When Gray wrote the opinion, he used the idea that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant “within the jurisdiction” and also pointed out that Congress’ action after the passage of the 14th Amendment was to be applied to all former slaves born in the US by making them citizens witout having to be naturalized. Since the 13th and 14th Amemndment was to apply to anyone and not just former slaves, one should assume that Chinese in 1890’s US should be treated similarly.
However, in the dissent, Fuller wrote
[QUOTE=Chief Justice Fuller]
But it is argued that the words “and not subject to any foreign power” should be construed as excepting from the operation of the statute only the children of public ministers and of aliens born during hostile occupation.
Was there any necessity of excepting them? And if there were others described by the words, why should the language be construed to exclude them?
Whether the immunity of foreign ministers from local allegiance rests on the fiction of extraterritoriality or on the waiver of territorial jurisdiction by receiving them as representatives of other sovereignties, the result is the same.
They do not owe allegiance otherwise than to their own governments, and their children cannot be regarded as born within any other.
And this is true as to the children of aliens within territory in hostile occupation, who necessarily are not under the protection of, nor bound to render obedience to, the sovereign whose domains are invaded; but it is not pretended that the children of citizens of a government so situated would not become its citizens a their birth, as the permanent allegiance [p721] of their parents would not be severed by the mere fact of the enemy’s possession.
If the act of 1866 had not contained the words, “and not subject to any foreign power,” the children neither of public ministers nor of aliens in territory in hostile occupation would have been included within its terms on any proper construction, for their birth would not have subjected them to ties of allegiance, whether local and temporary or general and permanent.
There was no necessity as to them for the insertion of the words, although they were embraced by them.
But there were others in respect of whom the exception was needed, namely, the children of aliens, whose parents owed local and temporary allegiance merely, remaining subject to a foreign power by virtue of the tie of permanent allegiance, which they had not severed by formal abjuration or equivalent conduct, and some of whom were not permitted to do so if they would.
And it was to prevent the acquisition of citizenship by the children of such aliens merely by birth within the geographical limits of the United States that the words were inserted.
[/QUOTE]
So bottom line is that it all hinges on SCOTUS’s interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and it is entirely possible to get 5 Justices to agree that the first interpretaion is wrong, kind of how SCOTUS decided in *Brown *the “separate but equal” in Plessy was an inaccrurate interpretation.
More like “never happened.” My parents (one American, one Canadian) told me this growing up, and I believed it to be true until I looked into it. I don’t know where the belief springs from.
Just to amplify: Broadly speaking, this is how any principle of US law is established; the 14th amendment is not unique in this way. For instance, that’s why we can’t firmly say what “natural-born citizen” as provided in the Constitution actually means. The Court has never been called upon to interpret it.
I was born of US parents on a US military base in Europe, and I received a birth certificate from that country as well as from the US State Department. My parents always told me that I had dual citizenship, but that my citizenship in the European country would lapse at age 21 (since I had never been back since shortly after birth) unless I took some action to maintain it. I’ve since discovered that my parents’ beliefs seem to have been mostly folklore.
Tebow would need to complete at least 50% of his passes to be eligible to be a legitimate NFL QB, however.
Yoou might need to poll the girls he has dated to arrive at an accurate figure here, however (You did not specify football passes). 
She left when she was a month old, actually. I have no idea what sort of requirements might apply to her if she were to move to the States in order to exercise her rights as an American.
She’s living in England now, anyways. Poor girl fell in love with a Welshman 
I think the way it worked was that people with dual US-Canadian citizenships had to live/travel/exercise their rights under the US one. In theory, they had to not act as citizens of another country, I think. Thing is, Canada allows multiple citizenships, so there isn’t really anything the US can do if Canada decides that an American is also a Canadian. The United States does not have the power to revoke, nullify or otherwise affect citizenship another country.
So it just doesn’t matter.
I don’t think my friend ever had a US passport, but when we’d cross the border before the passport requirement came into effect she’d go into the States as an American (using that birth certificate or other ID) and come back to Canada as a Canadian. We went to Cuba together (flying out of Toronto) and she had no problems, though the Cuban immigration officer was curious about the fact that she was born near Chicago.
It might matter a great deal if she has not been filing US taxes. Adult American citizens are required to file taxes annually regardless. It doesn’t matter if you have never been to the US as an adult or earned any US income.
For wedding present, get her 101 Ways to Cook Leeks.
I expect whoever she gets to do her taxes is aware of whatever obligations she might have. She’s worked in finance and with the added twist of working on a visa in the UK, I’m sure she’s got all her bases covered.
My parents believed in similar immigration fairy tales, I believe I have a lead on their origin although I have no cite.
It may have never been codified into law but US immigration agents(probably other nation’s as well) would strongly advise and imply you would face problems if you tried to retain multiple citizenships. Also the USA used to require as a condition of naturalization that you renounce all other citizenships, it was up to the other countries to ignore the request or actually file it.
I knew a girl (in the 80’s) who was the other way around. Born in Canada to American parents on vacation, at one point she said she’d had to choose. Since they lived in America she figured she might as well choose that one.
My grandfather was born in England, but his father was an American (born in America) so he got it automatically, but he did at one point have a hell of a time proving it to an employer.
I think if you (or she) looked into this, you would find she was mistaken, a victim of the same popular belief a lot of us grew up with. Canada does not make dual nationals “choose.”