Thread: Question about automatic citizenship

Do all babies born in the USA automatically become citizens even if the parents DON"T want them to be American?
If I am French, Italian, or a citizen of any country other than USA, and I am here on vacation or business and just happen to give birth here, even if not planned, is my child an American citizen?
If so, maybe that is reason enough to stop granting citizenship just because of birth.
Isn't it a little presumptuous to just ASSUME every pregnant woman who happens to be in the US when she goes into labor wants her child to become a citizen of a country that she owes no allegiance to, has no allegiance to, never wanted to be a part of, etc?
Shouldn't we really just assume that if, say, Mexicans wanted their kids to be American, they would legally apply for citizenship and wait like everyone else? After all, if the parents choose not to even attempt to become a citizen themselves, or begin the process and then give up for whatever reason they have, such as "It takes too long (and is not worth it in the end?) so I won't do it, or "It's too expensive (and not worth the expense?) why should we think it is an honor for their children to be American? If the children want this, they can apply when they are adults and understand what they are doing, right?
When the parents go around waving their Mexican flags, they are saying they love Mexico, so shouldn't we help them by allowing their children to be full Mexican citizens also, without automatically saddling them with dual citizenship? After all, how can one be equally loyal to two different countries at the same time? That's quite a burden for a newborn baby. We should really just keep it simple and allow the babies born in the USA to remain a citizen of the country his/her parents are loyal to, and citizens of, whether it is America, Mexico, Thailand, China, etc, and if anyone is going to change the citizenship, or add to the citizenship, of this minor child it really should be the right/responsibility of that child's parents or legal guardians, not the US government.
Maybe the mother to be really does come here for vacation, work-related reasons, or for free medical care and not for auto-citizenship and maybe it's racist to believe that they come here for citizenship for kids that they don't have themselves so it couldn't be too important an issue for them, and I think the US government should really stop making every baby born here an American. If the mother claimed at the border or when applying for a visa that she is coming here to shop, who is the US gov't to say "I am making your French baby a French-American baby, or a Mexican-American baby, because your body decided it was time for your baby to be born while you were shopping in the US, even though you didn't mention coming here for that reason when applying for a temp visa, and if the mother gets pregnant in the US, and/or overstays the visa, or comes through the desert illegally, she should just be put on the next plane home, as dishonest people aren't the type of people (good moral character?) that can obtain citizenship legally, so keep families together, and a first step toward keeping families together would obviously be to make sure that they have the same citizenship so the choice about whether to take baby back or leave baby in the US is removed, and the only option will be to bring the baby back to their own country.

While I agree with all of what you have stated regarding Mexico and its illegal alien population residing in the US, the reason we have the explosion in terms of their birthrate is so that they can stake a claim in the US taxpayer funded "freebies", i.e. welfare, healthcare, education, food stamps, Section 8 housing. Those anchors are their free meal ticket and will eventually open the doors of citizenship for their parents.

As for keeping them citizens of their birth mother, the 14th Amendment has been kidnapped by some idiot who decided to misinterpret it. In reality those children born to illegal aliens ARE NOT AUTOMATIC CITIZENS OF THE US, since their mother is not a US citizen, nor legal resident "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Not only that, since our STUPID GOVERNMENT allows them to ride two donkeys with one as-s, their children born in the US automatically hold dual citizenships.

I know why they really do it, I live in Tucson.
What I am unsure of is if I was one of the few who had a baby here "accidentally", if I really was coming here to shop and went into premature labor and had no choice but to have my child here, could I refuse citizenship for that child, or would that child become a citizen just by being born here?
I know they come here for the freebies.
I don't think any child should get citizenship unless their mother is a US citizen or if it is proven with a DNA test paid for by either parent (but not paid for with taxpayer $) that the father is a US citizen. Mexicans (again, I live in Tucson, and illegals from Mexico are most common) seem so quick to yell "discrimination" or "racist" I don't understand why that is only when things don't go their way, why don't they accuse the US of being "racist" when it forces citizenship on their new Mexican babies but they do when the US refuses to just give citizenship to their kids who were not even born here, but just used the states for a free education for up to 12 years, and a discounted education for the next 4 + years?
If I didn't want my kid to become a citizen, and my child was made a citizen just by being born here, and if the mothers of these kids where being "fair", wouldn't they consider that to be "racist" also?
I know what the 14th amendment was meant for, and it wasn't to give citizenship to any illegal invader's baby. When illegal alien supporters say it is unfair to NOT give citizenship to any baby born here, isn't that kind of "discriminatory" to say the mother's citizenship isn't good enough for the kid, so we will do the kid a favor and make them American? If I was on vacation in Italy, and went into labor, and had my child there, I sure wouldn't have wanted him to become an Italian citizen. It's a beautiful country, but I want my child to have my citizenship, and only mine, and not to have dual citizenship of a country I may like to vacation or shop, or even attend college in but don't love, and don't want my son fighting any wars for or pledging allegiance to, just because of birth.

I want to copy this post yall have and send it to the senitors

This subject of dual citizenship is my own
private nightmare.

I am am foreign-born US citizen trying to renounce
my foreign citizenship since I became a US citizen.

It's been down right frustating and revolting. I dont want
to be part of a foreing country but they are making my
life miserable everytime I try to proceed with my request.

Because our goverment turn a blind eye on the case of
dual citizenship and it does not enforce the "Oath of Naturalization"
other countries interpret this lack of enforcement as
an OK to hold one's old citizenship.

Because I was born abroad they claim me as a
citizen no matter what I do.... this het me fuming,...

What gets me is when they cross the border and camp out in the hospital parking waiting to go into labor. This isn't exactly an accident. Once the child is born, the mother can get all kinds of benefits. We need a President with guts to change this fiasco.

I like Steph's thoughts on this subject; it's something that should be addressed. Here's a little insight into the dilemma Steph. (This Amendment was designed to address the status of freed slaves after the Civil War):

Are children born of illegal immigrant's citizens?
By Vincent Gioia
MichNews.com
Sep 17, 2007



A common misconception is that the Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship upon everyone born in the United States whether or not they were born to an illegal alien. Actually, the Constitution itself does not provide citizenship to those born of illegal parents; the Supreme Court only said it did in an 1898 decision known as ‘U.S. v. Wong Ark Can’, and it is politically correct to accept this Supreme Court decision while ignoring others.

The problem is that the court majority in the Wong Ark Can case, as is so often today, ‘made law’ according to their personal beliefs and not what those that wrote the Constitution (or in this case, the 14th Amendment) actually intended at the time it was written. Justice Horace Gray, who wrote the majority decision in the Wong Ark Can case, reveals exactly what the majority was up to by avoiding discussion about the intention of the clause by the two Senators whom are most responsible for the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, Senators Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull.

It is clear the court majority in this case recognized the only reasonable way to come to the conclusion they wanted was to ignore the recorded legislative history left behind by the writers of the amendment. Justice Gray acknowledged this when he wrote: "Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and (sic)[but] the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words." (Emphasis added)

Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed with this attempt by the Wong Ark Can majority to rewrite the Constitution: "A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge's refusal to consider legislative intent." (Emphasis added)

Justice Gray and the court majority refused to consider both the original intent and legislative history behind the words because they knew it would be fatal to their pre-determined intent of reversing what Congress had inserted into the US Constitution by the fourteenth amendment so they avoided what senators Howard and Trumbull wrote and said.

Why did Justice Gray avoid the legislative history and the original intent of those writing the 14th amendment?

Well the first major hurdle Senator Howard presented to the court majority in this case is that he specifically declared the clause to be "virtue of natural law and national law" which only recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power. The Senator also stated when he introduced the amendment: “The clause [the citizenship clause section 1] specifically excludes all persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and persons 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." (Emphasis added). It seems clear that the amendment only applies to American citizens (natural law), regardless of their race - which is exactly what was intended.

The court majority had an even bigger problem to impose their will on American citizens because Senator Howard also said in May, 1868 that the "Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country." *

Senator Trumbull, the co-author, additionally presents a problem for the court majority by declaring: "The 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." Sen. Howard followed that up by stating 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."

Illegal aliens and visitors do not enjoy the same quality of jurisdiction as a citizen of the United States. Can an alien be tried for Treason against the United States? Senator Howard clearly intended that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" does not apply to anyone other than American citizens.

The writer, John A. Bingham, of the 14th amendment’s first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as "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..."

Ironically, the Supreme Court had already decided the meaning of the 14th amendment's citizenship clause before the Wong Kim Ark case, and unlike the majority in the Wong Kim Ark court, did consider the intent and meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdictionâ€

Originally Posted by Steph

Do all babies born in the USA automatically become citizens even if the parents DON"T want them to be American?

Yes. I read a while back about some Indian H1b workers who had a child in the US. Before they moved back to India they tried to cancel the childs US Citizenship, but the US government would not let them!! The problem for them is India does not allow dual citizenship, so the only way their child could be an Indian citizen was if they cancelled the child's US Citizenship. But the US wouldn't let them, if this is not tyranny I don't know what it.