CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is It Constitutional? If Born on U.S. Soil Is Naturalization Automatic with Few
Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 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."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
*There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.*
Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 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."
You aren't naturalized by being born on U.S. soil, you are a natural born citizen that doesn't need to be naturalized. But, to answer the debate question, when you quote the constitution it is constitutional.
There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.*
There are many, considering the video is from an official resourse.
With over 100 Embassies, I didnt count, it looks like maybe 150 by my estimate.
And most were long term, so I have no idea how many families, or for what mission, but with many families of diplomats have been hosted. They arent just visiting for a week, many diplomats are residents working in the offices of their country's Embassy. I posted a site that lists Embassys and their web sites.
But in any case, I'm sure diplomats have children while residing in the US.
They need to fix the system of tracking, and implementing a system that doesnt give out birth certificates and ss #s without properly identifying parents as citizens first
The funny thing, is you say it like its cut and dry, yet it is disputed.
There are grounds to say it doesn't, and it is pretty far off from actual policy.
They and the parents are here illegally, and there are requirements. Here is the
the policy on the Official website link for immigration. From what I can see on the US immigration website, that the path to citizenship is more complicated here is , very interesting site
It doesn't seem to be the case according to the Immigration website
The term "child" is defined differently under immigration law for purposes of naturalization than for other immigration purposes, including adoption. To be eligible, a child must meet the definition of "child" for naturalization purposes under immigration Law 1and must also meet the following requirements:
The child has at least one United States citizen parent (by birth or naturalization);
The child is under 18 years of age;
The child is currently residing permanently in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the United States citizen parent;
The child is a lawful permanent resident;
An adopted child meets the requirements applicable to adopted children under immigration
law 2
Acquiring citizenship automatically means citizenship acquired by law without the need to apply for citizenship. A child who is currently under the age of 18 and has already met all of the above requirements will acquire citizenship automatically on February 27, 2001. Otherwise, a child will acquire citizenship automatically on the date the child meets all of the above requirements.
How so? Embassy's are under the jurisdiction of the respective country, which means that the diplomat, being a resident of that property, would also be under the jurisdiction of said country.
Diplomats are not under jurisdiction, they are actually exempt from jurisdiction, and so are their families.
They have imunities, and they are under certain protections,. And they are not under our jurisdiction in the slightest. Just like our diplomats in host countries are not under the host countries jurisdiction.
USCIS adds the following: Regarding children of Diplomats: of course since government agencies are run by idiots, there is no follow through. And loopholes are created by the red tape of idiots, and also the lack of red tape of idiots. But actually, they create loopholes the size and the sudden appearance of huge sinkholes. And they no better, because they wrote the following.
Children of diplomats have auto immunity, a privelage only given to diplomats and their families. They can actually be "citizens, yet not really, but, be one get all benefits of citizenship, without a question or red flag. Until theres a a problem. If they break the law, well then , They are not citizens now they are children of diplomats, and are immune to prosecution for their crime.
They have ss #s and birth certificates, not because th US government thinks its a good idea, they have it because there is very little intelligentvlife working behind the scenes of government agencies.
And we wonder why we look like bumling idiots abroud.
There is no follow through, and no communicating, with awareness in any part of the whole process from the policy given to follow by the hospital staff, up to the State departments that issie birth certificates, up to the federal dept that issues SS#s.
The provisions of permanent residency will not apply to you until you relinquish (give up) your rights, privileges, exemptions, or immunities which are available to you as the child of a foreign diplomatic officer. Your registration for this provision is entirely voluntary.”31 This raises a significant question: If it means relinquishing privileges, why would a diplomat’s child with a U.S. birth certificate and SSN bother to apply for a green card? His existing status is better than U.S. citizenship: he is a de facto U.S. citizen who is immune from U.S. prosecution (provided his parents remain employed as diplomats). Similarly situated individuals can enjoy all of the benefits of U.S. citizenship as a result of the paperwork received at birth, but then claim diplomatic immunity if they violate a law. A lack of direction from Congress on this issue has arguably created citizens who are above the law.
Here is a sampling, they are in Alphabet order starting with
Correct, under juridmsdiction means under the governance of the law. Diplomats remain under the governance of their home country. Immunity excludes them from being governed by our laws, and also excludes them from being prosecured within our judicial system.
So therefore they are not under our jurisdiction
Defined:
a system of law courts; a judicature.
plural noun: jurisdictions
"in some jurisdictions there is a mandatory death sentence for murder"
the territory or sphere of activity over which the legal authority of a court or other institution extends
Why did you say what I said as a dispute? Im confused
I said this
Diplomats are not under jurisdiction, they are actually exempt from jurisdiction, and so are their families.
They have imunities, and they are under certain protections,. And they are not under our jurisdiction in the slightest. Just like our diplomats in host countries are not under the host countries jurisdiction.
You said this:
Diplomatic immunity means you aren't under the jurisdiction of the country you are in.
Diplomats remain under the governance of their home country. Immunity excludes them from being governed by our laws, and also excludes them from being prosecured within our judicial system.
Your original wording was unclear, as I thought you had been referring to U.S. diplomats in other countries, which are under our jurisdiction. You are correct that foreign diplomats here in the U.S. are not under our jurisdiction.
There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
Excerpt from support link:
"This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, b definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent.
Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.Children born on U.S. soil are disqualified from Naturalization"
2 out of 3 babies born to Immigrants are born to Illegal Aliens.
Having a baby on U.S. soil is seen as a ticket to legalization
The children born in 18 years as adults can legalize parents and siblings.
So a baby born here from a illegal alien is a "get out of jail, out of country of origin, and recieve U.S. benefits and entitlements for free card"
The following is The Oath of Allegiance to the United States:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;
and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment. This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated: The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship ...
Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ...
Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.Children born on U.S. soil are disqualified from Naturalization"
This is simply a matter of wording. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrant mothers is just as old as illegal immigration. Manipulating the way you present the issue in order to misconstrue "original intent" (as if that has any legal authority) seems..iffy.
The Constitutions, which makes it explicitly clear this time. Your attempt to actively change the context for political reasons is what is known as Constitutional activism.
The motion was agreed to ; and the Senate, as in Committee of the whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]
Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside."
I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of that. I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all
doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been
a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore.
The first amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan will be read.
The Secretary read the amendment, which was in line nine, after the words "section one," to insert:
All persons born in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the Uriited
States and of the States wherein they reside.
So that the section will read :
Sec. 1. All persona born in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the States wherein they reside.
(They were concerned about Indians and Gypsies, and Chinese, and other mass immigration. Being taken over by large amts of immigration from 1 Country.
Indians were treated as a separate nation, so their children born on American soil were excluded.
Immigrants have always existed. Why did Jacob Howard not mention that children of immigrants weren't applicable? Why did he only mention children of diplomats? Howard was not perfectly clear.
1st of all they were all emmigrants, immigration began heavier in the early 1800s and also they addressed the black person born here through slavery.
They addressed immigration and natralization and clearly made ref to avoiding infiltration of immigrants and of hostile infiltration of people with loyaltys to other countries
So yes they addressed the picture they could imagine and addressed it.
Bottom line, the parent is not legaly under jurisdiction, and it makes their child the same status as the parent.
Im not saying there shouldnt be a path to citizenship for these " lost children" but status is not citizen at birth on US soil.
Bottom line, the parent is not legaly under jurisdiction, and it makes their child the same status as the parent.
Except they are, and it does.
Im not saying there shouldnt be a path to citizenship for these " lost children" but status is not citizen at birth on US soil.
Legally it is.
And linking to an anti-immigration right-wing organization doesn't really do anything to further your argument, it just reiterates what you have already tried to claim.
1st of all they were all emmigrants, immigration began heavier in the early 1800s and also they addressed the black person born here through slavery.
Your argument said "In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard ...". Immigration was big early in the 1800s, so the guy explaining it in 1866 should have known to mention it.
They addressed immigration and natralization
NO! There was no mention of immigration.
clearly made ref to avoiding infiltration of immigrants
False. No mention of immigrants means it wasn't clear.
and of hostile infiltration of people with loyaltys to other countries
Absolutely no mention of loyalties to other countries.
So yes they addressed the picture they could imagine and addressed it.
Not if you actually read what they wrote. If you pretend they said something else, then yes.
Bottom line, the parent is not legaly under jurisdiction, and it makes their child the same status as the parent.
No. The child of an immigrant is under the jurisdiction of the country he is born in.
Im not saying there shouldnt be a path to citizenship for these " lost children" but status is not citizen at birth on US soil.
We don't believe you. We think that you don't want a path to citizenship.
Exactly, crazy isnt it! Im curious what is the wording in your Constitution if any regarding citizenship, naturalization and status of children born in the Country from legal and illegal immigrants?
