Ok, well if you are a U.S. Citizen then so is your Child, BUT, it’s from a Maxim of Law, not from the Communist 14th Amendment…
The Maxim states that a Child shall Inherit the Fathers Legal Status At Birth, and another Maxim, Jus Sanguinis, says that a Child born from a Citizen is also a Citizen…
the Problem is Dual Citizenship, which is seemingly Granted Via the 14th Amendment, wherein they apply Jus Soli, a Child Born on the Land is a Citizen, this is the incorrect Application of this Maxim as Jus Sanguinis is the superior Maxim, and if a child is Born to Foreigners, it should inherit its Fathers Legal Status at its Birth, and NOT U.S. Citizenship…
So, once again, the entire Problem is the 14th Amendment, that also Removes us from the untaxable Status of State Citizens, and makes us Federal Citizens, under the Commerce Clause, and as Tax Chattle Subjects, aka Tax Slaves…
My sister works at a hospital in California. She’s told me stories about women who are hired to have babies in the US. They come from China and are paid and put up in hotels. They are paid very well for this . They come to her hospital to have the baby and then they go back to China and start the whole process again. The whole the whole thing is intended to get the baby citizenship even though he or she is going back to China. This is so wrong and makes my blood boil.
THIS! We must stand on what the founding fathers started! If parents are not citizens of this country a baby born to them in this country is not a citizen either!
There are two categories of birthright citizenship: born of blood and born on soil. The former conveys citizenship to offspring of at least one American parent and is consistent with the US Constitution and US law. The latter is modeled after the British common law that makes anyone born within the empire a British subject. Obviously, the latter is inappropriate for Americans because we violently rejected the notion that a king owns us from birth. It’s this latter category that has been abused to convey citizenship to anyone born on US soil.
It’s not just an out-of-date policy…it’s not supported by any law nor the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
The State Dept. started handing out citizenship papers ad hoc mid-20th Century, and over time that bureaucratic incompetence/malice transmogrified into “official policy.”
Before that, SCOTUS legislated from the bench in Ark v US to create a new class of citizen: children born of foreign parents legally domiciled in the US (i.e. “green card” holders with permanent residence here) became US citizens. This was pure judicial activism.
Foreigners who have children on American soil do not produce Americans. Time to end the lie of birthright citizenship by birth on US soil.
They shouldn’t have their other parents citizenship status, like if my child was born here with me, they shouldn’t have their mother’s citizenship status because:
A) they are not born there
B) I’m head of household
I’m not saying this is the current law, but if we are making clarification and rules around it in a new policy, I would be happy with this. After all I am a citizen who was born here and am in this future situation.
Dual citizenship should never be allowed. Nat sec risks are too great, and putting citizens 2nd in line for something should never ever happen.
Birthright citizenship is wonderful practice for a developing nation looking to draw in well educated and skilled immigrants, it is an AWFUL practice for a developed nation that attracts people looking for welfare and benefits.
It is time we let break up with it (probably 30 years too late).
I own a duplex in Buffalo NY that I run my top unit as an AirBNB that only does monthly stays. I had an Indian(Canadian) couple from Toronto that stayed for 2 months, when they arrived the woman was visibly very pregnant. After 3 weeks they disappeared for 4 days when they came back they had a newborn with them. After 2 weeks they canceled the rest of their stay and left back to Canada. That child is an American citizen. Absolutely insane.
I was where you were until very recently. I did some research and there is pretty compelling evidence that the Congress that composed the 14th amendment had the intent that it would confer citizenship on children of foreign nationals. John Yoo wrote an article “settled law: Birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment” that provides a good summary. – Regardless, we need to stop the practice; I just think it is going to require a Constitutional Amendment. (or a very unlikely Supreme Court ruling reversing the 125 year old precedent.)
Agreed, ending birthright citizenship, along with banning welfare for non-citizens and requiring any immigrants to have a stable source of income, would help to solve many of the problems regarding mass invasions of migrants into this country.
Most countries don’t do birthright citizenship, and this is precisely why.
If 2 immigrants are here trying for citizenship and have a baby together, that baby should not be a citizen.
If a pregnant immigrant comes here and gives birth, that baby should not be a citizen.
However, if those immigrants come here, have a baby, and are granted citizenship through naturalization. That child should also be granted “NATURALIZATION.” It should not be counted as natural born. Natural Born should only apply to those born to U.S. Citizens.
As a born-and-raised US citizen living abroad, I’ve witnessed a concerning trend: numerous foreign nationals traveling to the US on tourist visas specifically to give birth and secure automatic citizenship for their children, despite neither parent being a US citizen. This practice, often encouraged by insurance companies and online forums, undermines the value of US citizenship.
Through my international work and personal experiences, I’ve observed this phenomenon among Ecuadorians, Peruvians, Colombians, and Argentinians. It’s alarming to consider the number of US citizens born to foreign nationals on tourist visas, who may never develop ties to our country, language, or traditions.
In contrast, when I had children abroad, I had to navigate lengthy bureaucratic procedures to pass on my US citizenship to them – a heritage rooted in my family, traditions, and language, including my father’s service as a Vietnam War veteran.
To address this issue, I propose revising birthright citizenship laws. Instead of automatic citizenship, babies born in the US to foreign nationals on tourist visas should acquire their parents’ citizenship. If neither parent is a US citizen, they should obtain a passport from their country’s consulate.
This change would preserve the integrity of US citizenship and ensure it’s not treated as a commodity. I urge policymakers to regulate birthright citizenship more effectively, balancing national security and heritage with compassion and fairness.
I disagree, Dual Citizenship is a horrible Practice all around…
IF it is allowed in a developing Nation, that Nation could be fully taken by simply infusing it with the People of your Nation, them have them gain Govt Offices, an they can change the Laws, and even go so far as to submit to your Nation without ever firing a single shot…
No, Dual Citizenship should be fully Banned everywhere, and those who would practice and apply for it should be made Stateless, and banned from ALL Nations…
I always have to wonder about people who provide partial quotes from the Constitution, while leaving out clauses that completely defeat the point they’re trying to make with the partial snippet. Un-American gun-grabbers do this all the time by quoting the preface and omitting the operative clause of 2A.
Here’s the citizenship clause in full: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The conditional clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” destroys the very recently created narrative assertion that a baby birthed on US soil by an alien is “automatically Naturalized at Birth.” There is no enabling law or regulation to make such a thing legitimate. I have read claims that in the 1950s, some unknown bureaucrat at State wrote a passport policy manual that illegitimately created the Anchor Baby citizenship category. But without a law or regulation to support it, that policy was moot upon publication of that manual.
All foreigners who travel continue to give their allegiance to and are required to follow the relevant laws of their home countries. In the congressional debates on 14A, the sponsor of the Amendment himself made it clear that for a child to be American upon birth his parents must have complete political allegiance to the United States. American Indians weren’t qualified because even if they’re born off the reservation, their parents’ allegiance is to their sovereign tribe. So naturally, foreign passport holders who haven’t applied for US citizenship are also excluded. A foreigner whose passport is set to expire doesn’t follow US passport laws to get a renewal, he follows his own country’s laws because he is still subject to its jurisdiction.
Further, Sen. Howard was the author of the citizenship clause we’re discussing. When he made a motion to append it to the draft 14A, he explicitly stated that “foreigners, aliens” were excluded from citizenship. Only Americans by birth or by naturalization can produce American babies.
I struggle with this. I think fixing our immigration policies, border policies, and stopping the invasion will naturally course correct these matters.
America’s promise has always been given to the next generation. That’s why our European ancestors sacrificed and risked everything to land on these shores.
To give us the opportunity of a life they could and would never imagine.
Are you suggesting that Native Americans are not full U.S. citizens who can run for president? Has this issue ever been tested in court? I’m curious if there has ever been a legal challenge asserting that Native Americans are somehow less American citizens, this matters because they’re saying that the loyalties would be split well that’s what a dual citizenship is split loyalties.
I’m starting to believe that no foreign citizen or dual citizenship holder should be allowed to vote, participate in elections, or hold any office. Dual citizenship, in particular, seems problematic because it involves pledging allegiance to two countries, which could lead to divided loyalties, even if it makes travel more convenient.
I do support birthright citizenship to some extent. If at least one parent has lived in the country for more than ten years when the child is born, the child should be granted permanent resident status. If the family chooses to stay, their children would automatically become citizens. By the second generation by birth any strong ties or loyalties to the grand parents’ country of origin would likely diminish.
Maybe it’s time to change the wording not citizen not permanent resident but guest, because that’s what a foreign citizen is they are a guest and they should not expect to have all the rights and privileges of those who are US citizens, birthright from these guests shouldn’t come until their grandkids are born here, by the time the grandkids are born here from a parent that is born here any ties or the majority of ties to the grandparents country will be gone.
