I have dual citizenship and find it disconcerting. A naturalized USA citizen. As I took the oath, I gave up my birth country in my mind, but I still have the other passport. I do not have any real duties I am obliged to fulfill to my former country and yet I am allowed to keep both citizenships simply because the two countries agreed. I often wonder if I need to renounce it to be consistent, myself.
I agree but bringing Eileen Gu into the discussion muddies your argument. Her mother, Yan Gu, was definitely a lawful permanent resident. Eileen's dad is American. San Francisco is a 1/3 Asian & 20% Chinese. A Chinese community has been in SF continuously since the 1800s. The Chinese call them ABCs and don't necessarily accept them when they "come home".
Eileen just decided to make some money based on an ethnic connection. It's a betrayal of sorts, but has little to do with legal precedent.
My grandparents had to renounce their prior citizenship claims upon being naturalized after entry through Ellis Island. Why was that requirement removed in the 70s? Divided allegiances are not allegiances.
Chevron and Roe were "settled law" too, until they weren't. As to being subject to our laws, that applies to almost anyone, anywhere. Different than "subject to the jurisdiction".
They should call me to testify about the 14th Amendment. I legally collected medical records on more than eighty Chinese women who traveled to Los Angeles to give birth and return thirty days later to their home in China. Their intention was to have a child born as an American citizen, who was immediately entitled to all rights of US citizens and who, at the age of eighteen, could legally bring their family members here to live.
I have the records, the names of the hospitals, doctors and the addresses where these women stayed before and after giving birth. Most arrived one to two weeks before birth and returned to China in thirty days. Companies in China made all the arrangements.
China is not the only nation from which women come here for birth right citizenship. Many literally get off the boat on the day they give birth. And the SSN worker in the hospital provides the paperwork, followed by the Birth Certificate employee. My job was completing the Medicaid application.
Most of the women I had records for came one to two weeks before delivery. They only saw the doctor once or twice before giving birth. The doctors, who were all Chinese, were paid $2,500 to $3,500 cash.
You must have been in billing. In my State, there was a program for immigrants who needed admission. The paid nothing. The visiting pregnant Moms who had insurance had it billed. But the visits were for American birth.
These were Chinese women who went to CA only to give birth. Whatever they paid to the doctors or hospitals was repaid to them by their Chinese insurance company. They told those companies they were on vacation and happened to go into labor. The Chinese insurance company rewrote its policies to exclude payment because the women were not allowed to travel after seven months, and they all had full-term babies. The changes were made when a woman gave birth on the plane, and it had to be diverted to Alaska. They put the woman on the next plane to China, without the baby, and sent her a bill for $33,000 for disrupting the flight.
It’s my understanding that this was solely written for the slaves so they would qualify as an American citizen upon slavery being abolished and they became free people. But if we are going to extend this to others who come here then a path to citizenship must prevail. Children who are born here take on their parent’s homeland. If my parents traveled to Uk and gave birth to me there, I would be considered under my parent’s citizenship, where they had me. Once parents fulfill that path and do it legally then and only then should the children be recognized as US citizens once their parents achieve theirs if underage at the time. If adult age, then they too must take the same path to citizenship.
The mayor of NYC has a dual US-Uganda citizenship. Outrageous. Why would we allow this? Mind-boggling.
I have dual citizenship and find it disconcerting. A naturalized USA citizen. As I took the oath, I gave up my birth country in my mind, but I still have the other passport. I do not have any real duties I am obliged to fulfill to my former country and yet I am allowed to keep both citizenships simply because the two countries agreed. I often wonder if I need to renounce it to be consistent, myself.
Dual citizenship must be forbidden by all Western nations.
I still argue that having one language brings a nation together.
I agree but bringing Eileen Gu into the discussion muddies your argument. Her mother, Yan Gu, was definitely a lawful permanent resident. Eileen's dad is American. San Francisco is a 1/3 Asian & 20% Chinese. A Chinese community has been in SF continuously since the 1800s. The Chinese call them ABCs and don't necessarily accept them when they "come home".
Eileen just decided to make some money based on an ethnic connection. It's a betrayal of sorts, but has little to do with legal precedent.
I, for one, would not let Miss Gu back in the USA. Screw her. She has denounced her citizenship, whether she realized it or not.
My grandparents had to renounce their prior citizenship claims upon being naturalized after entry through Ellis Island. Why was that requirement removed in the 70s? Divided allegiances are not allegiances.
Excellent article! We should not have dual citizenship in the U.S. It is all about loyalty.
Chevron and Roe were "settled law" too, until they weren't. As to being subject to our laws, that applies to almost anyone, anywhere. Different than "subject to the jurisdiction".
They should call me to testify about the 14th Amendment. I legally collected medical records on more than eighty Chinese women who traveled to Los Angeles to give birth and return thirty days later to their home in China. Their intention was to have a child born as an American citizen, who was immediately entitled to all rights of US citizens and who, at the age of eighteen, could legally bring their family members here to live.
I have the records, the names of the hospitals, doctors and the addresses where these women stayed before and after giving birth. Most arrived one to two weeks before birth and returned to China in thirty days. Companies in China made all the arrangements.
There are now over 100K of them
China is not the only nation from which women come here for birth right citizenship. Many literally get off the boat on the day they give birth. And the SSN worker in the hospital provides the paperwork, followed by the Birth Certificate employee. My job was completing the Medicaid application.
I’m looking forward to the SCOTUS decision.
Most of the women I had records for came one to two weeks before delivery. They only saw the doctor once or twice before giving birth. The doctors, who were all Chinese, were paid $2,500 to $3,500 cash.
You must have been in billing. In my State, there was a program for immigrants who needed admission. The paid nothing. The visiting pregnant Moms who had insurance had it billed. But the visits were for American birth.
These were Chinese women who went to CA only to give birth. Whatever they paid to the doctors or hospitals was repaid to them by their Chinese insurance company. They told those companies they were on vacation and happened to go into labor. The Chinese insurance company rewrote its policies to exclude payment because the women were not allowed to travel after seven months, and they all had full-term babies. The changes were made when a woman gave birth on the plane, and it had to be diverted to Alaska. They put the woman on the next plane to China, without the baby, and sent her a bill for $33,000 for disrupting the flight.
It’s my understanding that this was solely written for the slaves so they would qualify as an American citizen upon slavery being abolished and they became free people. But if we are going to extend this to others who come here then a path to citizenship must prevail. Children who are born here take on their parent’s homeland. If my parents traveled to Uk and gave birth to me there, I would be considered under my parent’s citizenship, where they had me. Once parents fulfill that path and do it legally then and only then should the children be recognized as US citizens once their parents achieve theirs if underage at the time. If adult age, then they too must take the same path to citizenship.
That should say, Not where they had me.
China can have her
Astute summary. The Framers would be shocked to see it misconstrued this way.
A very good, if brief, meditation on the concepts of citizenship, allegiance, and membership with implications far beyond just the nation.
I compare citizenship to marriage. … forsaking all others… till death do us part.
Interesting take, BKMS.
A US citizen, per the Constitution must fit one of these two definitions.
1. “born”
or
2. “naturalized”
in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Born defines children born to parents who already are actual citizens.
Naturalized refers to people who made specific efforts and commitments toward becoming a US citizen.
There is no way one can further read into that phrase that the child of a non-citizen merely by accident of birth here automatically is a US citizen.
It’s flat out absurd. And certainly not reflected in the text.
Absolutely 💯
Don't hold your breath expecting a logical decision from SCOTUS.
The Chief Justice forgot what a tax was during the obama care argument, and an associate justice can't define a woman.
America as a nation is circling the drain. 250 and out.
You're right about SCOTUS, but POTUS has a plan to save America. You're watching it play out.