Talk:Birthright citizenship in the United States

Merger proposal

I propose that Citizenship Clause be merged into Birthright citizenship in the United States. Because the Citizenship Clause is so important to birthright citizenship, it is important to carefully cover that clause in this article. Having a separate article about it is redundant, inconvenient to readers, and it is likely that editors who are only aware of one of the two articles will create contradictions between the two articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment: I don't oppose at this point, but I do disagree and I am leaning towards opposition. AFAICS, the Citizenship Clause is not relevant at all re birthright citizenship. Few citizens aspire to the Presidency and all who do or have done are or have been birthright citizens (offhand, I cannot think of an exception). Some aspirants may run into questions re whether Birthright and Natural Born are equivalent, but that doesn't have anything to do with their claim to birthright citizrnship. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• It seems to me the article about how the exact circumstances of a US citizen's birth would affect the citizen's eligibility for the presidency is "Natural-born-citizen clause". I think these two articles should be confined to how US citizens can be citizens from birth, and leave any distinctions among various methods with respect to presidential eligibility be confined to the "Natural-born-citizen clause", except for a one-sentence referral to that article. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Weak support: I agree, in principle, that these two topics overlap sufficiently to justify a merger. Everyone should realize that the necessary rewrite (combining two long and complex articles) isn't going to be easy. I also agree with Jc3s5h that a merger should not involve the Natural-born-citizen clause article; I trust Wtmitchell now understands the difference between the Citizenship and Natural-born-citizen clauses. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You got me there, Rich. It wasn't lack of understanding, but it was self-garble in composing my comment. I was thinking NBC clause but I didn't type that and didn't catch the error before saving my comment. Sometimes I do rush out a WP-talk comment under pressure to get on to other things, and the rush does sometimes result in self-garble—besides which I have always been hopeless at proofreading my own stuff. I'm a repeat offender in both of those areas. My bad. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose at this point - two long and complex articles - with this one at least being in the news - will be hard to merge and I don't see a particular reason to do so. I'll remove the merge tags today unless anybody objects. There's no reason to have this drag on beyond 1 month. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Smallbones -- substantively two different topics (although related), each one long and expandable; also, the editing task involved with a merger might get lost like in the The Blair Witch Project.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, also as per Smallbones -- It's practical to have a fork at these two topics, especially in that much more debate and writing can be expected down the "birthright citizenship" line. Rather than "incovenient to readers" to have the topics split, I think it would be inconvenient to have a large (and growing larger) article, with the topics mashed together. Bruiserid (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the tag - essentially if nobody give a real support after a month, I don't think it's going to pass. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Historical background?

Does the concept of birthright citizenship, as practiced in the North American British Colonies, then the United States of America, extend backwards beyond the British Common Law? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

$2.4B vs. $24B

In this recent edit, User:Dsalge972 corrected an incorrect figure of $24B to the $2.4B figure present in sources cited in support of the earlier erroneous figure. The erronious figure seems to have originally come into the article as "2 4 billion" in March 2012 here, to have been changed to "24 billion" in June 2012 here, and to have persisted in the article throughout the years since then.

Good catch!. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

correct birthright citizenship in America

Your article is incorrect. Jus sanguinis is not a method of birthright in the U.S. The Constitution provides birthright citizenship only under jus soli since its mandate that one be born under the jurisdiction of the United States. While jus sanguinis was available in England it has never been available in this country. Check William Blackstone's article in 1765 which indicates that one can only have one allegiance. check Elk v Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), checkThe Civil Rights Act of 1866; the discussion of Congress on its intent and application of the meaning "complete jurisdiction thereof" is "not owing allegiance to anybody else"; Osborn v. Bank; United States v Perkins 17 F.S. 177 (D.D.C. 1936)where a federal court denied a plaintiff who was seeking citizenship through jus sanguinis; Attorney general's decision in 1873 that jurisdiction" means absolute and complete jurisdiction"; papers of James Madison, 22 May 1789 179-82; Congressional record 6-14-1967 by Pinckney G McElwee on ineligibility of George Romney because he was born abroad in Mexico and most importantly the decision in City of Boerne v. Flores 501 U.S.507 (1997) that makes sections of 8 U.S. Code 1401, paragraphs c,d,e,g and h as well as the Immigration Act of 1940, paragraphs c, d, e, g, h; Sec 203.b; Sec. 204 a, b, c where the Court admonished Congress with the holding; "It hold the sole power to define the substantive rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment - a definition to which Congress may not add and from which it may not subtract.

Lastly, no child born abroad at any facility including U.S. military installations, embassies or consulates are "citizens by birth" most with two American parents which also eliminated jus sanguinis. Reference: U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs, 7 FAM 1113 Not included in the meaning of "in the United States" @C. "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United states within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the Unites states and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth".

There is some confusion about the Naturalization Act of 1790 which appears to employ jus sanguinis; however, the act is solely for naturalized individuals and their children. In Osborn, Chief Justice Marshall said "The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization AND THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER EXHAUSTS IT, SO FAR AS REGARDS THE INDIVIDUAL. Thus the Act of March 26, 1790 would be unconstitutional if it attempted to enlarge the rights of a naturalized citizen to be equal of those of natural-born citizens under the constitution.

Clarence Hall, Jr.