It’s not a problem. Mainly because the wealthy Chinese parents are going to go back to where their wealth is: China. And they’re going to take their child back with them. And the child won’t be able to sponsor them into the country until the child is an adult living in the US.
That’s not rewarding the parent. It’s rewarding the child by making the child a citizen the exact same way the government rewards every other child born the exact same way–in the United States–a citizen.
There are Americans who think that those born on American bases overseas are born on US soil, although that’s not the case. I seriously doubt though that there are those who were born on US soil and still think they are not US citizens.
Citizenship by birth on US soil is how everyone who got it that way got it: “they just showed up”.
Having been born to American citizens in Germany, I think I’ll have to go with I’m in support of jus sanguines being one method of having US citizenship, especially when the country where I was born did not at the time (and AFAIK still does not) grant citizenship via jus soli.
“Birth tourism” is not what has the bigots up in arms. It’s the bigots’ fear of some poor sod dropping their kid on US soil and “milking the welfare system”. Of course that’s utter nonsense.
Darn straight!
It is (in the mind of a bigot) if you are “not the right kind”.
Deigned to be born to “the wrong kind of parent”.
Thanks for posting that. While I think an argument could be made for the “and subject to the jurisdiction of” being a modifier for “naturalized” to make that mean the naturalized citizen is subject to the same legal obligations as a citizen born on US soil, what you quoted is quite clear.
Actually, I’m guessing from your repeated denunciation of “bigots,” of which you would no doubt think me one, that you’re interpreting it to mean the exact opposite of what I think it means. The court said the phrase was “intended to exclude… citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” If the intent was to give automatic citizenship to anyone born on US soil, how could there be any such person as a citizen or subject of a foreign state born within the United States? Who would meet that criterion? Clearly the framers of that Amendment, and the court in that case, thought it was possible to be born within the United States yet be a citizen or subject of a foreign state rather than the United States. So it would be reasonable to interpret this as applying to a child born to parents who are citizens of some other nation.
As for what harm wealthy Chinese families having kids here does, ask President Obama. His administration tried to crack down on birth tourism despite the fact it was 100% legal.
It’s not clear to me that the media’s interpretation is accurate in this case. It could be, but it seems just as likely that the Justice Department wanted to crack down on visa and medical fraud. I don’t see anything factual in the article to support an assertion that the raids were actually about one issue as opposed to another; I think it is entirely plausible that you and the reporter are projecting your opinions onto the facts.
In fact, if you look at the way the DoJ phrased these operations, it does seem focused more on fraud:
ETA: the Obama DOJ also took steps to prosecute visa fraud originating in China that involved sham student visas. I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that Obama was trying to exclude Chinese students from US universities just because they indicted the perpetrators of that fraud.
That was in 1872. In 1898 SCOTUS decided the Wong Kim Ark case, establishing that under the ‘broad and clear words of the Constitution’, people born in the United States are citizens.
So, is Trump going to revoke his youngest son’s citizenship? One of his parents was born outside the US. Or maybe he will revoke Melania and her parents citizenship.
You are right when you say this is not the forum for this, but you are even more right in what you state afterwards. I thank you. They are begging for it. Now let them whine.
Did Melania or her parents immigrate here illegally? Did Baron not have at least one parent who is a legal citizen, regardless of Melania’s status?
Trump’s ideas are stupid. There is no need to make stupid arguments to counter them. I don’t think Trump will issue his EO, but even if he does, it is likely to apply only to folks here illegally, and it certainly can’t apply retroactively.
If you want to win in the immigration debate, best to not conflate legal and illegal immigration.
Birthright citizenship is an accident of birth, what else? Consider yourself lucky not to have been born in Somaliland. Might well have happened. Citizenship is a human artifact and as such completely arbitrary.
Army brat, I came within a week of being born in Germany … and knowing my Mom, it would have been a civvy hospital, not one of the base facilities [we both have a dislike for being ‘treated’ by military doctors.]
What I take from the whole thing is that for birthright citizenship, they seem to want it restricted to people who have both parents as US citizens. How fr back do they want to take it? They can realistically only go back so far before everybody not amerind is an immigrant [hells bells, I have mentioned before that both sides of my family tree got here in the early to mid 1600s … and I consider my family to still be immigrant.] Might i point out that Nazi Germany dispossessed Jewish ‘immigrants’ that had been living there for several hundred years - a single drop of blood argument, just like our Jim Crow laws, so if you have any ‘brown’, ‘black’ or ‘yellow’ in ya, forget being a citizen …
though I get great glee in pointing out that the whole one drop is crap, Roman Auxilliaries were shifted province to province … and intermarriages were not particularly uncommon - any freedman could marry any other freedman, a freedman or a citizen could marry anybody of the right social class, and if a senatorial position wasn’t part of the deal, you could marry the richest blackest Ethiopian you could find if your little Gallic Roman heart desired.
And given that, the parents that were here illegally would appear to have two options:
(a) Leave the country, and take their child with them; or,
(b) Leave the country, but leave the child here.
Or, putting it another way:
(a) Forcing a citizen of the USA to leave; or,
(b) Separating a child from their parents - and you see how popular (b) is, given the reaction to what is being done with families trying to claim asylum.
I can see how any other option - for example, letting the parents “jump the green card line” - could be considered “rewarding the parents.”
If the Army thought you needed a family, they would have issued you one.
(Funny thing about “brat”. You seldom find out about others, but when you do you find out you have something very much in common, but unknown to anyone else. Its like a minority without any defining characteristics and no agenda. You’re just different…)
That’s fake news. Wong Kim Ark’s parents were both legal, permanent residents of the USA at the time of his birth. The case didn’t address the concept of children of illegal aliens. All we need is to declare that illegal aliens aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Sure, maybe a Presidential executive order is insufficient to do that, but Senator Lindsey Graham’s upcoming bill could.
Do you guys somehow have the idea that if you’re the parent of a US Citizen, you can’t be deported?
Because that idea is 100% false.
Yes, illegal immigrants come here, have a kid who is a US citizen. But that does not give them any right to stay in the United States. The kid can stay, we can’t deport the kids, because the kid is a US citizen. The parents are deported. The kid can either go with the parents back to Mexico, or stay here in the United States under someone else’s care.
But it is 100% false that the parents get to stay here to take care of the US citizen child.