united-states citizenship
US jus soli edge case
<p>Ok, so there is this border wall along the Southern border of the US.
However, this wall is not constructed exactly at the border.</p>
<p>There is an offset of quite some distance where land south of the wall still belongs to the US but is inaccessible to people from the US side but is freely accessible to people from the Mexico side.</p>
<p>So if someone was to give birth to a baby on land that belongs to the US but is south of the wall, and has videographic evidence of the birth process to prove this fact, is the baby then eligible for US citizenship?</p>

<p>The Supreme Court rules in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649" rel="noreferrer">US v. Wong Kim Ark</a> ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, which states</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is not disputed that said areas are &quot;in the United States&quot;. The court found that &quot;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&quot; is intended</p>
<blockquote>
<p>to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of
members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the
national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of
cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and
children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state</p>
</blockquote>
<p>neither of which are the case in your scenario. Technically, the child is not &quot;eligible&quot; for citizenship, the child <em>has</em> US citizenship, it is just a matter of getting a government official to recognize it (e.g. in issuing a passport).</p>

<p>A legal precedent that is most closely related to your question is <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/17/2748.pdf" rel="noreferrer"><em>Matter of Cantu</em>, 17 I&amp;N Dec. 190 (BIA 1978)</a>.</p>
<p>In 1906, the Rio Grande was artificially diverted north, which cut off a part of Texas from the rest of the state. During this period, Mexico, and not the United States, exercised <em>de facto</em> jurisdiction over this area, but legally, it remained United States territory. (In 1970, it was ceded to Mexico by treaty, resolving the unusual situation.) In 1978, the Board of Immigration Appeals had to determine the citizenship of a man who was born in the area in 1935.</p>
<p>The majority distinguished between an actual renunciation of US jurisdiction over the land (which occurred in 1970) and a situation where the US had determined that it still had jurisdiction but simply chosen not to exercise it for some reason (speculated to be &quot;because of fear of causing an international incident or disturbing international harmony&quot;), which was the case prior to 1970. In the latter situation, US citizenship still attaches at birth due to the Fourteenth Amendment (although to pedantic, the Board merely refused to allow Cantu to be deported, and did not technically declare him to be a citizen).</p>
<p>A wall exists along some parts of the US-Mexico border, and not others. This question could have been asked about the parts that don't have a wall. The United States can't monitor all of the border, all the time; many people have succeeded in crossing into the United States between ports of entry. Would you imagine that, if they gave birth in an area that isn't regularly patrolled by CBP, it means the baby isn't a US citizen?</p>
<p>The wall really doesn't change anything. CBP could, if they saw fit, patrol the area south of the wall that is still part of the United States. The fact that that part isn't blocked off doesn't mean that it's legal for non-citizens to simply go there without being inspected by CBP. Even if one views the erection of the wall at a particular latitude as an implied decision not to exercise jurisdiction south of it, the <em>Cantu</em> precedent is that nothing about US jurisdiction for citizenship purposes is actually changed by such a decision.</p>

<p>The birth would occur in a US state. As indicated in the answer by @user6726 the baby is a citizen at birth, unless the child of a diplomat. <em>Although the citizenship exists in theory, exercising the privileges and performing the duties of a citizen in practice requires documentation of the citizenship; the most common method for US citizens born in the US to demonstrate their citizenship is a birth certificate issued by a US state.</em> All the states require that births be registered. Once the birth is registered, a birth certificate can be obtained and will be sufficient proof of the baby's citizenship.</p>
<p>As an example, Texas Health and Safety Code <a href="https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/?link=HS" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[HSC §192.003 (d)]</a> requires that the birth be reported, and if we suppose that only the mother was present, the mother would be obliged to report the birth to the local registrar of the registration district.</p>
<p>Texas has produced a <a href="https://dshs.texas.gov/vs/partners/docs/BirthRegistrationHandbook.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Birth Registration Handbook</a> which beginning on page 6, describes the proof that the mother would have to provide in order to register the birth. In summary, the mother would have to produce letters or affidavits showing that the mother had been pregnant, that someone other than the parents knew the baby was born alive, and an affidavit from a person who knew the mother was present in the registration district on the date of birth, and proof the birth occurred on the date stated.</p>
<p>The handbook alludes to alternative proof if the stated documentation is not available, and review by the &quot;VSS Field services&quot;.</p>
<p>So, for Texas, whether the mother would be allowed to register the birth would depend on her travels on the day of birth and who was with her. If she didn't meet the requirements, she could go to a Texas court for an order to register the birth; the court might or might not find the video convincing.</p>
