if a child is born in the U.S. & the mother is an illegal(from any country)why is the child a u.s.citizen?
456619
Sorry folks - NO MORE!!\n\nThe law has been changed and while we'll help the lady with the birth and so on, if necessary, they are both illegals and will be deported.\n\nSee Ya!\n\nThank you for your time.
673222
Generally, because you have a child who has the US citizenship due to the birth in the US, does not grant you the US citizenship at all.  I have not heard any cases due to a sole reason that a parent was granted the permanent residency status, because the child was the US citizen.  (I caution you that I do not practice immigration law full time, however)\n\nHaving said that, your status as being a student (assuming legally student for 5 years) should not affect your green card application status, barring some unknown facts.   I suggest you apply for the permanent residency through the work permit (H-1) or apply for the lottery program (50,000 slots every year for qualified applicants).
121198
Yes, there is a difference because the people who born in US have a constitutional citizenship, that’s a citizenship derive by constitution but there are people who actually are US citizens but don’t born in US, nether in US military base camp and that people have a statutory citizenship and that’s derived by law. That people enjoy must of the benefits in the constitution and the responsibilities but not all of theme. For example the people who are from Puerto Rico are US citizens but that people can’t vote for the president of the US in Puerto Rico, if that people move to Florida or New York or other state of the nation then they can vote for the president. .
61980
People become American citizens automatically either by being born in America or to an American citizen (either mother or father). People not born citizens can also naturalize through a fairly lengthy process.\n\nThe president is required to be a natural citizen (aka born in America or to American citizens), but for all other offices, the person must merely be a citizen, no matter how they became that way.
632861
The problem with The Fourteenth Amendment Is That it has been MISINTERPRETED  in recent years to mean simply that anyone born in the U.S, \nunder 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. \nSome 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, \nas is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority. \nA group of attorneys and immigration experts are trying to do something about the problem. \nCraig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement: "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\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, \nhas 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)) \nThe phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" 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), \nthe Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, \nbeyond 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. \nThe 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.\n 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, \nparticularly 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 provably vague and t
5052
A child is a citizen of whatever country its parents are citizens of.\n\nIf the USA's anachronistic grant of citizenship to anyone born on US soil weren't an actual part of the Constitution, that grant would have been changed long ago.
810994
The problem with this "anchor baby" issue that keeps coming up is that it is a chimera:  it does not exist.\n\nThere is NO provision under the immigration law or any other law that allows non-American adults, legal or illegal, to remain in the US just because they have borne an American citizen child.  There are no asylum or other rules that allow such parents to remain in the US.  In fact, there are many thousands of US citizen children living overseas, who were born in the US but their parents had no right to stay there and left when their business, whatever it was, was over.\n\nThe child cannot even petition for the parents until he or she turns 21, and then will have to be domiciled in the US, not just the holder of a US passport.
1135043
Umm it is meant in a derogatory way. \n\n\nI found this from a site " illegal alien parents who have children born in the U.S. are seldom deported . That's why their children are called "anchor babies" - they anchor their families securely in the U.S.A."\n\n\nread more by clicking the link.
616012
Someone who is legal citizen of U.S.A.
27526
Yes, a child born to a US citizen is automatically a US citizen, no matter where the child is born, you just have to file the paperwork in an american embassy in the country where the kid is born.
381425
how about a traitor?  i was an immigrant but came here legally. i became a us citizen after 5 years of continuous stay in the us. i applied for citizenship and was granted. there are legal ways and process to migrate. illegal is illegal, plain and simple. it is a criminal act. it must be punishable by law. these illegal immigrants know this as a fact and yet they justify this act. i am so against illegal immigration and some call me a traitor.
1076271
I agree with you.  If you are born here then you are a "legal American" and that child has no power over what thier parents did, so no they sohuldn't be punished for something that they couldn't control in the first place.  I agree with this question.
522303
What are these people talking about.  She will not get deported.  That would be considered cruel and unusual punishment.  The American government will not separate a mother from a child, and they will not kick out the child if he's a citizen, and she has cancer.  This has been taken to court several times and the courts always side with the defendant.  Tell her not to worry about her status, just to worry about her self and her kid.  If they do try to do something, the press will have a field day on this.  Tell her sorry about how things turned out, but this wont be something she would have to worry about.
1181180
Regardless of where a child is born, they automatically get the citizenship of whatever country their parents' are citizens of.  For most countries, they are also considered citizens of whatever country they are born in.  So, in theory, you could have a Mother from one country, a Father from a second country, and they could be traveling or whatever and have a baby in a third country, and the child would have citizenship in all 3.  \n\nSome countries allow a person to maintain their dual citizenship their whole lives, and others require them to choose an allegiance when they reach the age of majority in that country.  For example, my daughter.  My husband and I are both US citizens, and she was born while we were stationed in Newfoundland.  So, she has dual citizenship - US and Canadian.  Canadian law allows you to have dual citizenship, but the US requires her to pick when she's 18.  As long as she picks the US, she basically gets to retain her dual citizenship.\n\nSo, if a child was born truly in international waters on an international plane, then there would be no "home country" - just the country(ies) of the parents'.  Unless the country that the airline in question was based out of, or the country that the flight was going into decided to grant the child citizenship as well.
90258
When you say "illegal immigrant" means his/ her visa expired, but married a US citizen. If the US citizen applies for the spouse, s/he can stay in US, not as a citizen but resident. The individual can become a citizen 3 years after being granteed permanent residence. Now if you break it up within 3 years of getting married, you might loose the petition. Any child born here is a US citizen. This law also might change soon. If you are illegal, but your child's a citizen the child can apply for your legalized status when s/he is 18 years old.\nI hope that answers your questions.
712927
How about this the parents and the child have to go back. When the child reaches the age of maturity. He will be allowed back in the country at that time with the right every other american citizen has. It's not fair to punish the child for the crimes of the parents. It's not fair to reward criminals because of a child. This will also cut back on anchor babies.
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.