Where in the constition does it state that anyone born in the United States is a citizen,?
469779
Amendment 14 Section 1 [1868]:\n"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."
237073
An alien is a foreign born person who has not qualified as a citizen of the country; but an alien is a person within the meaning of the due process clause of the U. S. Constitution to the same extent as a citizen.
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. .
506093
Yes, by current law in America, anyone not the child of a diplomatic representative is an American citizen upon birth in America.
416862
Not as a category distinct from citizenship per se, which is by birth or lawful naturalization, as provided in the Constitution and in subsequent federal law.
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.
227158
You are a natural citizen of whatever country it was that you were born in.
1027920
Yes, for not all people in the United States are citizens (immigrants, etc.), and yet these people must be afforded protection under the law of the country when they are in this country.\n\n(In the past, abolitionists like Lysander Spooner had even argued that "the people" included those being held in slavery, and that therefore slavery was inherently unconstitutional.)
955556
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.
444091
***In Response To parrotjohn2001\n\nThe 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"The situation we have today is absurd," alleges Craig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, \na group of attorneys and immigration experts that is trying to do something about the problem. \n"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. \nThis 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"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF." \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)) \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\n the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either.  In 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\n The 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\n Judging 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.  The 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 s
97306
If you are born in the usa then you are a citizen it doesn't matter which state you are born in.
980104
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.\n\nSection 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.\n\nSection 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.\n\nSection 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.\n\nSection 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.\n\n\nOk, nutshell explanation, anyone born on US soil is a natural-born citizen, as per Article I. Article II over-rides the previous statute of slaves being 3/5 of a person, now any male over 21 could vote, and representation in the House was adjusted to incorporate the possible influx of members due to the recalibration. Article III basically states that any member of a rebellion against the United States *cough Confederate States of America cough* can't hold any office, military of civilian, unless Congress overrules the disability with a 2/3 majority vote, on a case-by-case basis. Article IV states that the US won't pay reparations for lost slaves, or the CSA's debts. Article V is just there to say Congress will make states do this.\n\nIt's significance is this: Have you heard the term anchor-babies? An anchor baby is a child, born in America, to illegal alien parents, and the parents use the child to get welfare, get it an education, which the parents normally don't care about anyways, and whenever someone comes sniffing, say "They're an American citizen, don't split up our family!" As of the last Congress, there were proposals to alter Article I, to require that one parent must be a US citizen to make you a natural citizen, and if neither were, you weren't a citizen, and could be deported, with the parents, to the parent's home cou
352691
The answer is yes they are giving auto citizenship until otherwise they disown or renos it.\nSorry wrong one, 14th amendment\n\nThe several bills and resolutions now before Congress that would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to certain classes of alien parents raise various issues of law and policy. My testimony today will address two points of constitutional law. First, because the rule of citizenship acquired by birth within the United States is the law of the Constitution, it cannot be changed through legislation, but only by amending the Constitution. A bill such as H.R. 1363, 104th Cong. (1995), the "Citizenship Reform Act of 1995," that purports to deny citizenship by birth to persons born within the jurisdiction of this country is unconstitutional on its face. Second, the proposed constitutional amendments on this topic conflict with basic constitutional principles. To adopt such an amendment would not be technically unlawful, but it would flatly contradict our constitutional history and our constitutional traditions. Affirming the citizenship of African-Americans that Dred Scott had denied, in 1862 President Lincoln's Attorney General wrote an opinion for the Secretary of the Treasury asserting "[a]s far as I know . . . you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than the 'accident of birth' -- the fact that we happened to be born in the United States." (5) Today, in 1995, we cannot and should not try to solve the difficult problems illegal immigration poses by denying citizenship to persons whose claim to be recognized as Americans rests on the same constitutional footing as that of any natural-born citizen. Members of both of your Subcommittees have worked vigorously, with the Department of Justice on an evenhanded bipartisan basis, on legislation and oversight to address these problems.\n\nI.\n\n\n       H.R. 1363, the "Citizenship Reform Act of 1995," exemplifies the various legislative proposals before the committees. The stated purpose of the bill is "to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens." Section 3(a) of the bill amends section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants U.S. citizenship "at birth" to all persons "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Specifically, section 3(a) proposes to define the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to include only children born to U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens.\n\nthe Supreme Court held that a child born in San Francisco of Chinese parents (who, under the Chinese Exclusion laws then in effect, could never themselves become U.S. citizens) became at the time of his birth in the United States a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.\n\n       The Court, in a detailed review of the Anglo-American common law of citizenship and the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, established several propositions. First, because the Constitution does not define United States citizenship, it must be interpreted in light of the common law. Under the common law of England, which was adopted by the United States, every child born within the territory of alien parents was a natural-born subject, with the exception of children born of foreign ambassadors, of alien enemies during hostile occupation, and of aliens on a foreign vessel.
640959
Since you r a US citizen, the newborn has automatic citizenship.  it is base on the principle of jus sanguinis, which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his/her parents.
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.
179756
Because the Constitution states that only people born in the United States can become president.
589961
Anyone born in the US is a US citizen.  How would you like that to change?  Should every baby born here have to apply for citizenship, or just the babies of people you don't like?