If (1) goes away, it would seem to put the citizenship of everyone who is not a naturalized citizen in jeopardy. Number (2) won’t save them, at least not if their parent’s (or parents’) citizenship is based on (1), because then their parents’ citizenship would be in jeopardy.
So if birthright citizenship is declared null and void, wouldn’t it create a situation whereby the only bonafide US citizens would be those who were naturalized (ie. started out as noncitizens then went through the naturalization process) or had at least one parent who did so. In other words, the only ironclad US citizens would be people who were born outside the US and their children.
Ironic, or am I missing something?
Apologies if:
This is in the wrong thread. I would like a factual answer to the question in the title. But I realize I’ve added other commentary, so move it if it fits better elsewhere.
This has already been discussed. I tried searching but didn’t find.
You nailed the main points. If the courts upend this then who knows? I am not sure there are laws in place to cover it since it has never been an issue.
Anyone born within U.S. territory (including all 50 states, District of Columbia, and most U.S. territories) automatically becomes a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.
Born abroad to U.S. citizen parents: Children born outside the U.S. may acquire citizenship at birth if:
Both parents are U.S. citizens, and at least one lived in the U.S. before the child’s birth
One parent is a U.S. citizen who lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years (with at least 2 years after age 14)
Specific residency requirements vary based on when the child was born
Beyond that you have to go through naturalization proceedings.
There also may be special rules for those in the military and their spouse/child. Not sure though.
You really cannot avoid politics and answer this question. The current proposal, as I understand it, is that if the mother is a legal immigrant, the child will be a citizen. The point is to exclude children born to illegal immigrants or to tourists.
So my grandparents all legally immigrated to the US, not Ellis Island, but port of Philadelphia, so my parents were legitimately citizens, even by current administration standards; therefore so am I and my children (two of whom born outside the US).
If you took the OP seriously, only native Americans would be citizens and maybe not them.
Besides I am sure the courts would grandfather (literally) all current citizens. Or chaos would ensue.
IIRC, there are only three special rules for them.
Shortened time before being eligible for citizenship.
Immediately eligible for naturalization if wounded in combat while member of the US military.
Expeditious naturalization for the service member’s family members. This is (or was) a program in which if the sponsoring service member were transferred overseas, the foreign family members are immediately naturalized upon application and contingent on their immediately joining the sponsoring miltiary member overseas. Also, IIRC, this program applies (or applied) to both military and all oher federal workers.
I’m going to be posting this link in the cluster thread in The BBQ Pit shortly. This is going to be immediately more complicated than it used to be. I think the aricle’s title is enough info for this thread.
As I understand, the point of the executive order was to eliminate the automatic citizenship granted to children of people in the country illegally, not everyone born in the USA. The thing nobody discusses was whether this included tourists and others without permanent residence. Presumably also strictly the mother’s status. Would that include or exclude, say, people on (temporary) student visas? And also not discussed in the news was whether this would be retroactive?
The news after the court decision said the executive order could “take effect in 30 days” outside of the jurisdiction of the original court.
I reall reading somewhere that the criteria was age 18, and this was the crux of the “birther conspiracy”, that since Obama’s mother was not 2 years past her 18th birthday, if the president had been born abroad (he wasn’t, he was born in Hawaii) then he would not be a US citizen from his mother’s citizenship.
Whereas John McCain, son of two American citizens, was born in the Canal Zone in Panama, and was a citizen.
What makes a US citizen is whatever the current power makes it. Never forget that. US citizen means nothing if the governing power dictates it ad hoc.
It means nothing.
Side note: I legitimately think a lot of people who love and support the fascist actions of their nations, do so under the mistaken belief that they are special. The state will act against hated minorities. No. The state will choose whatever minority gets victimized. That can include you too.
And one passed after McCain was born, at that. When McCain was born, there was an odd loophole in the law, concerning the Canal Zone: Children born in the territory and jurisdiction of the US are citizens, and children born outside of the territory and jurisdiction of the US can be citizens based on the citizenship of their parents, but the Canal Zone fell into neither of those categories, since it was outside of the territory of the US, but under its jurisdiction.
Under the new rules, were they retroactive, only one of my grandparents would have been a US citizen, but that’s enough.
Lots of jus sanguinis counties ultimately go back to “if your ancestors were here when we started documenting all this, you’re a citizen,” and in many cases that doesn’t actually go back all that far.
I think it discounts it, but also gives an idea of what they might have been trying to express. I posted it because it seemed like the closest thing for a cite in the hypothetical brave new world; Saint_Cad already posted a factual cite on the current legal reality in post #2.
There’s already a proviso to birthright citizenship in the rule that children born in the US do not get citizenship if the reason their parents were in the country at the time of the child’s birth was that they (or rather, at least one of them) were a foreign diplomat posted to the US (constitutionally, this is justified via the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause in the text of the 14th Amendment). So an additional proviso requiring legal immigration status of the parents would, while politically hugely controversial, not be logically inconceivable. Current British (another traditional jus sanguinis country) nationality law has such a requirement, for instance.
Trump’s campaign website states that, to qualify as a citizen, any baby born after his executive order would need to have at least one parent who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Scholars across the political spectrum agree that this proposal is clearly unconstitutional because it plainly violates the 14th Amendment. The ACLU breaks down why.
I mentioned it here or in that other thread that there is a minority legal theory that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that you are a citizen and therefore owe allegience to the government or has lawful (permanent?) residence and thus have given an oath of allegence to the government. IF that legal theory is correct then this would be Constitutional … but that’s a big if. However, if the current SCOTUS agreed with that interpretation of STTJT it would not surprise me.
I concur. But altho we agree trumps hypothesis is very doubtful- it isnt absolutely crazy. He is not trying to end all birthright citizenship, just a narrow portion of it.