English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

24 answers

Awwww .. to the person who said if her baby was born on British soil it would become a British citizen - not SO!! Not unless you are a naturalized British citizen ...

As for the 14th amendment ... yes indeed, under our jurisdiction are the keywords ... see what the law has to say:

In the Dred Scott Case, 1 Chief Justice Taney for the Court ruled that United States citizenship was enjoyed by two classes of individuals: (1) white persons born in the United States as descendents of ''persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States and [who] became also citizens of this new political body,'' the United States of America, and (2) those who, having been ''born outside the dominions of the United States,'' had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein. The States were competent, he continued, to confer state citizenship upon anyone in their midst, but they could not make the recipient of such status a citizen of the United States.

So where the idea that if you're born on American soil you're automatically a citizen comes from beats me ... that seems to be the way it IS ... but I don't know WHY it has become so ... does anyone?

2006-07-05 10:49:25 · answer #1 · answered by Sashie 6 · 3 0

Absolutely not, now I have no problem with letting the Baby of a Legal Immigrant become a Citizen but if the Parents are Illegal then the Baby should be deemed a Foreigner.

2006-07-05 10:48:14 · answer #2 · answered by MrCool1978 6 · 0 1

we are able to not bypass regulations that require some thing of a special u . s . a ., which contain that u . s . a .'s citizenship regulations. we are able to in ordinary words bypass and implement regulations that result our electorate or human beings travelling our u . s . a ., even if or not they are the following legally or not. i'm really particular that anchor children at the instant are not electorate of the U. S. if their dad and mom at the instant are not electorate. i comprehend which could not the difficulty-free information right this moment yet i imagine it really is the point of the structure or perhaps as that is finally examined they gained't be electorate. If as an celebration an American soldier and his spouse are stationed in yet another u . s . a . and they have somewhat one (not born on base, it quite is American soil) there the toddler is an American. it isn't a (although u . s . a .) citizen. children who're born even as their dad and mom are travelling are electorate of the figure's u . s . a .. there is not any reason to advantages unlawful invaders of our u . s . a . with citizenship for his or her children. which could not the regulation and which could not the custom. that is in basic terms a rivalry by using illegals that their little anchors are human beings for this reason spreading Americanism to the completed relatives.

2016-11-01 06:28:36 · answer #3 · answered by ravelo 4 · 0 0

Why not? If my baby was born in the UK it would a British citizen regardless of the fact that I am an American. Why can't a baby be a US citizen even if it was birthed by a Mexican woman? The baby was born on US soil, the mother chose to be here, why not?

2006-07-05 10:39:14 · answer #4 · answered by Quicksilver 3 · 0 0

I think they should not have family reunification preferences to bring in family at ANY age since that encourages gaming of our immigration laws. Since the family reunification 'above quota' immigration is relatively new, that is easier to change than the constitution.

However, the way the world is, maybe the constitution should be changed. I just don't want to do it in the heat of the moment. I'd rather get border security in place, etc. and take our time on that one. Limiting family preferences is a much easier fix to pass, I think. I for one would rather have an actual law to address the issue than any number of fake attempts to pass a Constitutional amendment just to make politicians look like they are concerned.

2006-07-05 11:20:06 · answer #5 · answered by DAR 7 · 0 0

Actually any baby born on United States soil is a citizen despite what their parents are/were. I doubt that law will change.

2006-07-05 10:35:25 · answer #6 · answered by Marilynne 3 · 0 0

No, and contrary to misguided beliefs, the U.S is one of the very FEW that have this policy. In most countries, citizenship is something passed on by the parents, not the happenstance of being born on the soil of that country.

2006-07-05 15:04:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It is the law and until it the law says otherwise, I will say yes the baby should automatically be a US citizen.

2006-07-05 10:37:33 · answer #8 · answered by wallyade 2 · 0 0

why do you think millions of women get pregnant in mexico and then come across right before giving birth an american citizen is entitled to the freebies this is fraud and reason number 365287 sub reason J why we need to stop the invasion now

2006-07-05 11:35:47 · answer #9 · answered by scottfreefunny 2 · 0 0

No, there should not be any incentive to enter the country illegally. We cannot afford to have people that are unable to take care of themselves come here, have multiple children, and expect us to take care of them instead of our own children. Until this law is changed there can be no tempory worker program.

2006-07-05 10:54:12 · answer #10 · answered by Tommy 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers