what nationality a USA born who cannot prove being a USA citizens should be given in ur opinion and why ???

Question

lets say an orphan ...

i ask this question based in the opinion of some who believe that only people who have a father or mother born in the USA should be given citizenship ... so my question is about those who would not be able to prove having a father or a mother born in the USA ...

many argue that the 14 amendment was made just for those ( the blacks ) who were oppressed back then when the amendment was made but that it should not include those who cannot prove having a mother or father who is American ...

so the question would be : what nationality in ur opinion those who cannot prove either one but to be born in the USA should be given and why ???

should the 14 amendment include them or do u agree that it was made only for the black people back then ???

:D interesting

i wonder where is the people who keep talking about what the 14 amend... should include and what it shouldn't ....

KAZ is ur answer USA citizens ???

very interesting coragryph but i jsut wonder what should be done with perhaps someone who was left in a fire station ... it is allowed in some states to leave unwanted children in fire stations with out having the mother answer any question .

new born ..... so far all answers agree in him being a citizen seems like

Answer 1

Regardless of why that clause of the 14th Amendment was enacted, the plain text is clear. Anyone born in the US is entitled to rights of citizenship, unless they were born in a foreign embassy or other territory that the US govt has no authority to regulate.

BUT -- If someone cannot prove --- either by documentation or witnesses --- that they were born in the US, then the clause does not apply. Just like any other law doesn't apply if you cannot meet the burden of proof.

Answer 2

In this hypothetical scenario, how old is the child? Do they speak English? Do they speak at all?

If it's an infant, I'd say they would be a US citizen by default. If it's a 17 year old "orphan" who is still sweating from a long run in the desert...I'd say no, not a citizen.

***This question is a set up, I think. Since this child would probably be considered a citizen (under the current laws, and our thinking here)...I am anticipating another possible question following, that being:

If a baby is born in the US is a citizen, it is within his or her rights to have mother and father, brother and sister living in the same country, etc. is it not?

Basically, the anchor baby argument.

So, if there IS actually a twist to this question...for THAT baby, that we know the parents are NOT citizens, in my opinion, neither is that baby. In my opinion, you have to either be born to 1 or 2 citizens, or be naturalized. No more anchor baby.

ricmon, I don't feel it is unamerican to change the constitution. You are referring to the 14th amendment, are you not? Tell me what the word AMENDMENT means, please. One thing I have always loved about being American is our adaptability, and our law making process is no exception. This process may take a while, but it happens. I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say in your post, if you belive illegal immigrants should be protected under the constitution, or not. I don't believe they should be, since they are not CITIZENS nor NATURALIZED. We, as Americans tend to not want others to suffer so if an illegal is in need of medical attention, or food, etc. we will open our hearts...and while this is a good thing, it teaches those receiving the medical attention, food, etc. that they can play on our heartstrings to their own gain. This irritates me, because then I feel bad or stupid because I want to be a GOOD person...they take advantage of another person's or country's generousity. To me, that's very low.

Answer 3

The 14th amendment: "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"

And it should stay that way. Even considering making a change to that would be un-American. This is America, get over it.

Answer 4

nationality is not based on race, answer #1, nationality is where you are born, are there not "blacks" born in Canada, or "whites" born in England?

As for the real question, I would say they would become a "ward of the court" and put into foster care.

If it was an adult in that situation, I don't think they would be granted citizenship, because they would be coming from another country, they would have already gone through foster care as a child had they been in the U.S. beforehand.

Also, it doesn't have to be the parents born in the U.S.A. If you are a child and born in the U.S.A., you are automatically a citizen. (this raises issues with children of illegal immigrants)

Answer 5

Actually the USSC already decided a very long time ago that this provision did protect children born in the US to non US citizens. The case involved the Chinese child of undocumented Chinese immigrants that were excluded due to the Chinese Exclusion act. It determined that children born in the US are US citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Answer 6

the burden of proof should be on the government to prove a person is not a US citizen. if the government fails to prove so in a reasonable time, that person should be entitled to US citizenship. But at the same time, there should be landmines and machine guns placed on every border and coast to kill trespassers indiscriminately.

Answer 7

American Citizens...

Answer 8

Interesting analogy.In answer to the question...I would have to say U S citizen and the 14th would have to apply as it should anyway.We can't just pick and choose which Amendments we want and how they are to be interpreted anyway.Or many of our rights would be null and void such as guns.

Answer 9

Well they would look at the child and see what nationality he might fit under. White, colored , Oriental. etc.