Folinskyinla

Hi:

First sentence of the 14th Amendment -- "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."

The key phrase that many people miss is "subject to the jurisidiction" thereof. That is where the exception for children of diplomats come from -- also included in the exceptions are children of enemy army occupying US territory and on foreign warships in harbor.

The 14th Amendment was added in the aftermath of the Civil War which, in large part had some interesting issues of citizenship in it which had muddied up the waters quite a bit -- e.g. was Robert E. Lee as citizen of Virginia first and then the United States. Also, the infamous "Dred Scott" case was based in large part on the "diversity of citizenship" clause for jurisdiction.

So, when confronted with the conditions of the freed slaves, the bloody aftermath of the Civil War, etc etc, the amendment was passed.

Of interest are the floor speech of one of the drafter, Senator Howard. The Supreme Court spoke on the amendment several times in the latter half of the 19th Century [e.g. the Justices had living memory of the Civil War] -- of particular interest are the "Slaughterhouse Cases" and "Wong Kim Ark."

I've yet to see an argument contrary to the above material. And case law in the 20th and 21st Century follows the above authority.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

I suggest reading the Supreme Court decisions of the Slaughterhouse Cases and Wong Kim Ark. Of interest are the comment of Senator Howard, one of the drafters of the Amendment.

As for the people born abroad, that is a matter of the statute. Congress can give broader grants of citizenship and sometimes does. That is under their authority to pass "uniform laws of naturalization.".

Jus soli and "subject to the jurisdiction" is well established law now.

sgallagher

    > >>
    > >> Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and
    > >> subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
    > Yes, Jurisdiction. The Government's Jurisdiction of which the Secretary Of
    > State and the State department have the jurisdiction over issuing passports
    > and visas. Any person entering the US without permission (Visa) is therefore
    > not subject to jurisdiction in this respect

A person is either under US jurisdiction or he his not, you can't
cherrypick, although you would like to be able to do so.

    > >>> The children born to diplomats are not automatically US citizens just
    > >>> because they were born on US soil.
    > >>
    > >> That's right, because diplomats have diplomatic immunity, meaning they
    > >> are not subject to US jurisdiction (US laws do not apply to them). The
    > >> fourteenth amendment excludes children born in the US to diplomats, on
    > >> that basis.
    > Really? A diplomat's child doesn't automatically have immunity

The State Department disagrees with you on that. Their website
confirms, that in the US, a diplomat's recognized family member holds
the same immunity and inviolabilty as does the diplomat himself (or
herself).

http://www.state.gov/m/ds/immunities/c9127.htm

So, your statement about lack of immunity for the child of a diplomat
is incorrect.

    > and that
    > child at the age of 18 would have a good case if they chose so to claim US
    > citizenship on the basis of the 14th Amendment since their parents were in
    > the US legally with a diplomatic Visa.

No, because the child holds the same immunity as does his parent. He
is excluded from US citizenship on this account.

    > Visa under the JURISDICTION of the
    > Secretery of State.which may be cancelled and the diplomat expelled from
    > the country.

Sure, but then again neither he nor his children (if born in the US)
would be US citizens due to their immunity, so of course they could be
expelled.

    > Now, I guess you could propose to grant immunity to all
    > >> illegal aliens, and claim that the children born to them are not
    > >> subject to US jurisdiction, that US laws do not apply to them, and
    > >> therefore they are excluded from the citizenship guaranteed in the
    > >> fourteenth amendment.
    > The US Constitution is a very simply written document and I suggest you read
    > the US Supreme Court's decisions because their interpretation is the Law.

Decisions such as Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)

CPW

What nationality (or nationalities) a child born in the UK possesses depends on the circumstances. A child born in the UK with at least one parent who is a British citizen, a non-British citizen with the right of abode in the UK, an Irish citizen, or settled in the UK (i.e. with indefinite leave to remain in the UK) is a British citizen at birth.

People who are legally living in the UK but who don't fall into any of those categories will find, broadly, that a child born in the UK will be granted a visa compatible with the status of the parent(s).

Whether a child born in the UK has any other nationality depends, of course, on the laws of the other country concerned, not UK law. For example, most children born in the UK to a US-born parent would be entitled to US citizenship: the UK has no say in that matter - any more than the US has a say in whether a child born in the US to British parents is a British citizen or not.

Joe Feise

[email protected] wrote on 09/27/06 04:58:

    >
    > Decisions such as Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)
    >


And Wong Kim Ark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wong_Kim_Ark
--
I am not a lawyer.
For reliable advice, consult a competent immigration attorney.

Joe Feise

Moishe wrote on 09/27/06 01:05:

    > Joe Feise ha scritto:
    >
    >> Joe Feise wrote on 09/26/06 22:54:
    >>> Avenger wrote on 09/26/06 21:34:
    >>>> Read the above about jurisdiction stupid. You're a pro illegal alien
    >>>> internet moron who can't even afford a Green Card
    >>> LOL. Unlike you, who posts from the UK, I am a US citizen.
    >
    > Ok Jose you're a Puerto Rican haha We should deport them too
    >


Idiot troll.
*PLONK!*

sgallagher

    > As a matter of interest, what's the situation for a baby born outside the
    > territorial limits (3 miles of coastline or airspace)?

It would depend upon the nationality laws of the country involved.
Some countries will consider a birth aboard a vessel registered in that
country as being the same as birth on the soil of that country.

    > In that circumstance,
    > is the child assumed to take the nationality of the parents?

That would depend on the nationality laws of the parents' country or
countries of nationality. The child would only be a citizen there if
the laws of that/those country/countries allow for it. It's definitely
possible in some cases that a child could be born stateless of neither
the country of birth nor the parents' nationality countries will confer
citizenship.

    > And does the US
    > nationality apply to all births, including to visitors, or do visitors not
    > fulfil the "jurisdiction" part of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Visitors both legal and illegal, are considered to be under
jurisdiction, and their children, if born in the US, are US citizens.

    > I hadn't realised that the US was unusual in deeming that all children born
    > within its borders had US nationality. What happens in the UK?

Before 1983, birth in the UK would grant UK nationality. Since then, a
child bornn there is British if his parent is either British or is
settled there. Settled means living there without any immigration time
limits on his stay. Visitors to the UK whose children are born there,
do not receive UK nationality if they were born in 1983 or later.

    > If a child is
    > born in the UK to non-UK citizens who may have right of residence here or
    > may be visiting on holiday, does the child take the parents' nationality?

That depends on the nationality laws of the parent's country. Only, if
the parent's country's laws provide for the child to be one of its
citizens, will the child be a citizen there. British law can only say
whether or not a child is British. It cannot decree a child to be a
citizen of any other country.

    > What about people from elsewhere in the EU? I've never known the precise
    > rules.

Each EU country decides who will be it's citizens. In general, most
require that at least one parent be either a citizen or legal permanent
resident if the child is to be a citizen. Children born to visitors
are not citizens.

    > And if a child is born abroad to UK citizens, does it always have
    > British nationality,

It will if at least one parent is British other than by descent. The
rules have changed over the years, so it depends when the child was
born.

Folinskyinla

BTW, in the FWIW department, the children of diplomats ARE born with LPR in their mouth -- although they are aliens at birth in the US, they are considered to be lawfully in the US under the defintion of LPR. standard abandonment analysis then applies if they thereafter leave the US. There is published caselaw on the subject.

An interest subset of immigration law

JAJ

To add to this, where one or both parents is a citizen of an EU/EEA state there's a complex set of rules to determine whether the parent is deemed to have "indefinite leave to remain" or not for the purpose of determining if a UK born child is British at birth. Rules on this changed on 2 October 2000 and again on 30 April 2006.


If a UK born child has no other nationality, and cannot obtain one, then normally it could be registered as a British citizen.

And whether stateless or not, a UK-born child who lives in the UK until age 10 has an entitlement to be registered as British irrespective of immigration status.

Carmela Wong

All these bitter postings were totally uncalled for.