Should citizenship be granted automatically to children born on US soil.?
465601
Yes, if their parents are legal, they are technicaly citizens.
806505
There is a law stating what constitutes American citizenship.  If you are born of an American Parent(s) or born on US territory (including territories that are not states) you are automatically as US citizen.  If you immigrate, register, take the required courses in English and US History, pass the tests, pass medical exam, after 10 years you can be made a Naturalized citizen.  Naturalized citizens can not become President (unless there is a change in the Constitution).\n\nIt is difficult for many Americans to break up a family (ie send one or both parents home and allow the US child to stay, or deny the US Child by having the child go home with its parents.  I think it's time to change that law to only children born of US citizenS, not just one US citizen.  Children of one US citizen get a front place in line to immigrate legally.
1062387
im American and i wouldn't have a problem with you getting citizenship because you are doing it the legal way, you are literate and already have experience in a job, and you know what kind of job you are looking for.i would rather see more of you coming to America than people who suck up social security when actual citizens need it. ofcourse this is my opinion only.
317797
YES\n\nAge and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1\n\nNo person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
169726
a good proposal for an amendment for the Constitution would be  to change the requirements to be president.  you would still have to be 35 years old and be a resident in the United States for 14 years, but change the natural-born citizen part.  instead of being a natural-born citizen make it be a United States citizen for 40 years.  this way people whose parents move here when they are kids; these would be the only ways that they know and know as much as any other kid here.  i think this would be a grand topic to talk about in your paper and could easly elaberate on with examples.  remember to explain yourself and put your heart and soul into it to get a good grade.
595688
The problem is that this (Fourteenth Amendment)has been misinterpreted in recent years to mean simply that anyone born in the U.S, under any circumstances, is an American citizen.\nThis is neither the original intent of the law nor the way it was interpreted by the courts in subsequent decades. Some Americans speak of birthright citizenship as if it were an immutable law of nature. \nIt is not, and most other nations do not, in fact, recognize it. It is only a BAD HABIT that could be broken with a simple Executive Order. \n\nAccording to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year. \nOnce a mother has birthed a child on American soil, she can then seek to obtain citizenship for herself on the strength of the family-reunification laws. \nEven before this happens, she is very hard to deport, as the mother of an American, and the full panoply of welfare benefits is available to her, as is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority.\n\nA group of attorneys and immigration experts are trying to do something about the problem RIGHT NOW. \n\nCraig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement Stated :\n"The situation we have today is absurd,There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. This was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."\n(Sound Familiar??)\n\nThe key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase\n\n"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF."\n\nThe whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means: \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment EXCLUDES the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)) \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))\n\nThe phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" REQUIRES "Direct And Immediate ALLEGIENCE" to the United States, NOT just physical presence. \n(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)) \n\nThere is NO automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) \n\nThe Supreme Court has NEVER confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. \n(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982)) \n\nThere are other cases referring to minor details of the question.\n\nThe so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. \nIn the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so-called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.\n\nThose facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.\n\nThe U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States. As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1.\n\nJudging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so-called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history. \nThe phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.” \n\nFor this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is prov
358681
They should apply for citizenship the legal way.  If you want to stay here then do it RIGHT or go home.\nThey take away our jobs (working for nothing).  I agree buy everything today!!!!!!!
550875
Yes, because the children are American citizens.
1187180
Yes, you are very right.  I agree.  Parents should have to show their children's US birth certificates at the time of registration of their children in school.  For the ones born here, okay, of course they can go to school in the US.  For the ones not born here and no legal documentation for being in the US, no they should NOT be able to go to school in the US.  Their parents are the ones at fault for bringing them to the US illegally.  If they really care about their children and want them to get a US education, then they should have thought about that before and should have applied legally to come into the US with their children.  Or, they should have left their children at home in their own country, applied for themselves a work visa in the US and send money home to pay for their children to go to a proper school in their own country.  American taxpayers should NOT have to foot the bill to educate their children.  I feel sorry for these children for having such thoughtless parents as to bring them into another country illegally, but we cannot afford to pay for everything for them.
338692
It does not. unless they were born in the US (making them citizens). if they were born abroad, then it does not include them.
914917
We need a law regulating the issuance of citizenship to NO MORE than 200,000 people per year. This would keep our country from growing into a population we cannot sustain on our natural resources. More than that number will be disastrous to our infrastructure and environment. The USA today allows approximately 1,000,000 people to immigrate here annually. We need to enforce the law we already have on the books on ILLEGAL immigration. That abuse needs to be totally stopped!!
989076
I think they should learn English AND EARN their citizenship.  My Mother in Law is an immigrant, and she WORKED to become an American Citizen.  It's a slap to her and others who have worked hard to become citizens.
203460
no, but if woman who is not a citizen has a child on US soil then the baby can become a citizen (if the woman wants to).  I think they also nationalize the mother.
42682
Yes, the Phillipines recognizes any child born to one or two citizens of the Phillipines as a citizen, while the US recognizes anyone born on US soil as a US citizen, and neither requires the citizen to relinquish the other.
666287
If a baby is born in the US I think that they should be legal if their parents are or not!!!
1115068
Honestly, no. I feel that this happened so long ago that I had no control over it. I think it is just fine that so called "anchor babies" are allowed to be natural-born citizens.
794326
Your question is very vague, but I will try to explain it to you.  There are two ways to become a US citizen upon birth - Jus Soli and Jus Sanguia.  They translate to "birth on American Soil" and "birth by blood".  The "American Soil" one is self explanatory, but the birth by blood is a little more complicated.  It pretty much means that if at least one of your parents is a US citizens and had resided in the US for more than 14 years, but you were born abroad (in a foreign country), you were still entitled to US Citizenship.  There usually involves more to it than that, but those are the basic laws.\n\nThe other way is to Naturalize.  You have to be 18 years old and a legal permanent resident for at least five years to do that.