i was asked perhaps the dumbest question ever today...

[FoodFight]

Cody said: can you really officially renounce your citizenship to your country? where would you live if you didnt have any citizenship in any other country if you did To the best of my knowledge the U.S. won't allow renouncement of citizenship unless the person in question has or is seeking citizenship elsewhere in order to avoid being 'stateless'. Those with dual citizenship can renounce for a variety of reasons.

[strayrider]

Not so, at present children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents are automatically citizens, due to the longstanding U.S. rule of birthright citizenship. Hence the term "anchor baby." It hasn't actually been tested in the courts as far as I know, but I don't think it's very controversial that that is the present state of the law. Now, many people have advocated changing the law to exclude children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship. The question of whether that would require a constitutional amendment or not has been fiercely debated. While I'm certainly no expert on law in general, nor Constitutional law specifically, I do remember a thing or two from high school (when I wasn't snoring, that is ) http://www.heritage.org/Research/Gov...form/wm925.cfm Of particular interest are the comments by Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio: By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. And “jurisdiction” did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, “jurisdiction” meant exclusive “allegiance” to the United States. Not all who were subject to the laws owed allegiance to the United States. As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of “jurisdiction,” understood in the sense of “allegiance,” “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 accredited to the Government of the United States.” (Bold emphasis mine.) How is this interpreted? Does it mean that foreign aliens who are born to ambassadors or foreign ministers are excluded? Or does it mean that the following are excluded: 1. foreigners 2. aliens 3. families of ambassadors 4. families of foreign ministers I also looked up the actual text of the 14th. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14 Section One, of particular importance in this discussion, reads (again bold emphasis mine): 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. As mentioned in the first block above, "jurisdiction" should be interpreted as meaning "allegiance" to the United States. From my very basic understanding, a person who is an illegal alien cannot be considered to have allegiance to the United States simply because they are not citizens and their allegiance would still lie with whatever country they came from, thus, their children should not be considered "automatic" citizens. I could, of course, be quite in error. -stray-

[Publius]

I typed up a long response and then the power went out, so I'll sum up: one interpretation to "subject to the jurisdiction" relates to who U.S. law applies to. Diplomats and their families have diplomatic immunity, they can do whatever they want and U.S. law can't touch them. Other foreigners in the U.S. (tourists, legal and illegal immigrants), however, subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the U.S. by entering the country. If they do anything while here that violates U.S. law, the U.S. will assert that jurisdiction and prosecute them for it. If illegal immigrants were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they could not be brought before U.S. courts and charged with U.S. crimes. I think there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the 14th Amendment. This is the one behind current policy (as I understand it), but some members of Congress etc. propose changing that policy and agree more with the Heritage Foundation article you cite.