citizenship thru the proper channels? If not, WHY?
132691
They can, but it doesn't look like they are going to.\n\nSupposedly under the bill as it stands now, anyone who has been here  less than 2 years has to go back and anyone who has been here for 2-5 years has to go to the border and register, but all they have to do is produce a utility bill or piece of mail more than five years old and then they don't have to do that.  For those who have been here for more than five years, they must learn English, take a class in American civics and apply for citizenship.
324060
I'm not sure what you're actually asking, because it doesn't make sense.  Check with a website on citizenship.
485869
I've often thought that everyone should have to pass the same test as an immigrant who is being naturalized before they get the full rights of citizenship.  What we get free we don't value, and far to many people in the U.S. value neither their citizenship nor their freedoms.  I sometimes feel they don't even value their country.  I wouldn't require government service or anything like that for citizenship, that smacks too much of a police state, and it should be something that can't simply be paid for but which will require both work and study.  It would be possible for a person to live in this country without passing the test if they so chose, like a legal alien, they just couldn't vote, hold public office, receive a passport, serve as an Officer of a Court, serve as an Officer in the Armed Forces, or be eligible for government benefits and assistance.  They would still pay their taxes like any other legal alien.  When U.S. Citizenship is a privilege to be earned, and not a free prize, people might start taking their responsibilities more seriously.
85999
Canada allow their citizens to hold as many citizenships as they like. As for the US,\nActually, in theory armystud_yo is correct, US may ask you to renounce your Canadian citizenship ,however, this rarely ever happens.\nI don't think you will have any problem as I know a lot of people who have done it.
349014
With dual citizenship, it's not a problem. I know some folks in El Paso, Texas who actually live in Cuidad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico and just cross every day.\n\nHeck, I know a lady that lives here and goes there (to a maquiladora) every day. No problem.
532224
Unlike most other countries, dual citizenship is not legal in the US. In fact, naturalized citizens can have their citizenship revoked if it could be proven that they owe allegiance to another country. Unfortunately if one was born in the US it is very difficult to do the same.\n\nDual allegiances is wrong, as well as unethical.
338315
THIS DOES NOT BOTHER ME AS YOUR PARENTS ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING BUT TRYING TO GET THEIR CITIZENSHIP.  YOU WILL UNDOUBTEDLY DO THE SAME.\n\nYOU HAVE GOTTEN AN EDUCATION AND ARE BECOMING A PRODUCTIVE MEMBER OF SOCIETY.\n\nGOOD FOR YOU!!!!\n\nKEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
518506
Simple ...we use the guest worker program we already have ... import thousands of people from all over the world who would LOVE to come here and earn a buck or two legally for a specified time, and then go home!!  Since we already have a program that allows for that, why not use it?  No need whatsoever for a comprehensive reform leading to citizenship ...
233605
My friend Andrew currently lives in Mexico and is teaching English in business settings. I don't think he has changed citizenship, but he may be able to answer some questions for you. I'll link his myspace below!
653745
When you become a US citizen you have to disavow allegiance to your birth country.Some people have a problem with that.
245602
Should what? move to a better country? Or what are you asking? If that is the case for sure go to a country where you get the privileges that come with being a good citizen.
303314
Huh....\n\nIts been 10+ years since I did some consulting in San Juan, and I see no reason why they should not be allowed citizenship, nor why you would call PR a disaster. Different perhaps, but as far as a propensity for violence and crime, the seedy areas there were actually much safer than say East Philadelphia, or other seedy area's in New England. At the time, I could go just about anywhere during the daylight hours, something I wouldn't try here. Prudence was necessary at night to avoid the bad sections.\n\nUnfortunately changes in public policy and the tax breaks for working with PR got changed, and I think thats most unfortunate. Their is a great, albeit different work ethic, and the value they could provide to the US had a huge potential.
31580
No.  I do think there should be a policy that anyone with the guts to make it across the border just to get a job should probably be granted citizenship.  This is exactly the sort of person I want to be an American :)
585493
Immigration and Naturalization.  www.ins.gov
245097
Don't be so angry - it's going to take a little longer to become a citizen, that's all.\n\nNo go clean out those toilets.
269473
I will give the link to you in a minute.. I have been there many times..\nhttp://www.inami.gob.mx/\nThat is immigration, but to become a citizen it is\nhttp://www.sre.gob.mx/\nSRE makes you a citizen, Immigration lets you stay here for different reasons.. Their working here laws are very strict compared to ours.
317292
I will try it be short - no guarentees.. History can be long and complex.\n\nEver since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the main stream media. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means. \n\nDuring the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." \n\nThe author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John A Bingham (OH), responded to the above declaration as follows: "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." \n\nAlready before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have the entire Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this is law of the land. It just gets worst for advocates who want to either believe or, revise history, to support their fable that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural born citizen. \n\nSen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to the US Senate as follows: \n\n[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. \n\nSo than, what exactly did subject to the jurisdiction mean? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth: \n\n[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. \n\nSen. Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's construction by saying: \n\n[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. \n\nMyths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception.\nCivil Rights bill of 1870 declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens. \n\nUS Su