16 Comments
User's avatar
Fox Fier's avatar

My youngest son is glaring at me for making such a hideous noise when I hit "Slavic special ed."

Expand full comment
Dale Flowers's avatar

Yup. My wife came here and earned her citizenship the old-fashioned way. At her peak, she was working two full-time jobs and two part-time jobs. 5 of her 6 siblings came here by way of chain immigration over a 10 year period, waiting in line and a $15K expense on my part (real money in 1970s dollars). The other brother came here on his own and joined the Navy. All by the book and legal. Three of my brothers-in-law earned U.S. citizenship by serving in the Navy. A CWO4 w/ 31 years, E-7 w/ 26 years, and E-4 w/ 4 years. 3 sisters-in-law immigrated legally, got jobs, earned their citizenship, prospered. None of them ever took a dime of welfare. I have no liking for illegal immigrants. They are no better than line jumpers at Popeye's Chicken...which chaps my ass.

Expand full comment
Andrew's avatar

My personal opinion. Jus soli if your parents are green card holders, or at least have an accepted application for a green card, and are merely waiting for it to come through.

Everyone else? Jus sanguinis.

Expand full comment
Fox Fier's avatar

I think that does a good job of showing someone is "under the authority" of the country, yes.

Expand full comment
Francis Turner's avatar

They didn't have green cards back then, but that was the effective standard used to allow the citizenship of that Chinese guy Wong Kim Ark back in 1898

Parents were (at the time of his birth) legal permanent residents

Expand full comment
Steve S6's avatar

I'd let the child's wait on the parents completing their citizenship.

Expand full comment
Riley Perkins's avatar

Word to the wise:

Someone who currently shares the American presidential crown, appears to be examining the birthrights of Native American Indians.

What ho, you say?

Yup. It seems the theory being bruited about is that Native American Indians owe allegiance to their tribal entities, and are thus not 'loyal American citizens' and so may be deprived of their status as born Americans.

Not the craziest thing to come down the pike since January 6th, nor one of the outrageous, but close, close.

So LawDog, being born in Malta of American parents is safe, you say?

Well, his father was Scottish and German AND Cherokee and Shawnee, and although he was never tribally enrolled, he lived on American Indian land from birth into his 30s.

What would his status be under this idiotic 'not loyal' theory, and therefore, LawDog's?

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Expand full comment
Ian's avatar

As I read the actual legal filings, the Government was using the black-letter law of 1866 as an attempt to explain their interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

An interesting legal strategy, and one I shall follow with some interest.

However, some folks took a really dry legal point, apparently misread it, and decided it was an attempt to relieve Native Americans of their citizenship.

I don't read that, so if someone who has read it can point me to that filing, I'd appreciate it.

The current holder of the keys to the Oval Office is attempting to remove The United States from the list of countries that follow jus soli laws. Every current native American is the child of at least one Native American parent, thus under jus sanguini -- which the current US government is not going after --they're citizens.

Expand full comment
Riley Perkins's avatar

It appears that Someone has read the Foreign Emoluments Clause and would like to apply this to the Native American Indian. As yet, there are just rumblings, no filing, no action.

However, several American Indian attorneys are watching this idea and viewing it as a possible threat.

They are wise; in the current runaway politics of today, it would be foolish to ignore such rumblings. Additionally, if this idea is even remotely enforceable then the Inuit of Greenland, which represent approximately 90% of the population, could be victimized, should Greenland come under the rule of the two American co-kings.

Expand full comment
Resonant Media Arts's avatar

I can see why Jus Sanguinus is not resisted by the US as we are a nation of immigrants brought together... well we USED to be brought together by a common ideology of the "land of opportunity. There is no "genetic nationality" like you see with other nations, as our ancestors came from all over the world. I see the need for some change away from Jus Soli.

That method of citizenship has become perverted by the common ideology held by most "immigrants" that come over thanks to Teddy Kennedy's removal of immigration quotas. Now it's all "loot the rich by any means necessary" because we have zero requirements made of those anchor babies and their parents, only the goodie grab bag.

I can see several "compromise" methods to this to discorage birth tourism.

"Jus Sanguinis THEN Jus Soli". meaning that until adulthood, they are considered to have dual citizenship with the "superior" status being that of Jus Sanguinis. No benefits, no rights and no goodies in the US till the child turns 18, and they had spent their lives in their parents home nation unless the parents are officially legal immigrants.

Jus Sanguinis AND Jus Soli: The child must have both, but that really is a severe overcorrection in my opinion.

Jus Soli raised by Jus Sanguinis: If you have a child in the US but are not US citizens, the child becomes a ward of the state and put up for adoption by natural US citizens by Jus Solis and Jus Sanguinis.

Those are only 3 layman ideas of ways to deal with this. The priviledges of citizenship shouldn't automatically transfer to the illegal parents who try to use this method to back door immigration, and who often have no interet or intent to integrate with American ideals and society. I saw a lot of this when in the Somali community when I drove school bus in the Twin Cities. They see it as a little colony they conquered. Not an ethnically similar community to integrate harmoniously with their new nation. I heard many stories on how the parents would immediately return to Somalia if the gravy train was cut off, but their daughters born in the US would be murdered for being too western. The act of wearing blue jeans under their burkhas and hijabs were death warrants, so they felt stuck, but okay with staying in their social services hammock made by the state and federal welfare apparatus.

Anyway, yes. We need massive changes, restart quotas to ease integration and expand LEGAL immigration to like minded cultures that believe and can add to our nation's greatness. Not just every thief, dopefiend or terrorist who only wants to sack the nation like Visigoths in Rome.

Expand full comment
Pi Guy's avatar

Took me 13 months to get my FS-240 just renew my driver's license

Expand full comment
Richard Hopkins's avatar

And now I'm curious about children who were born overseas but their parents immigrated when they were young, possibly even babes in arms. How do they qualify if their parents become naturalized and they're raised in our culture. Is there a simplified way for them to get their citizenship?

Expand full comment
JaimeInTexas's avatar

No to dual citizenship.

You must be born in a State in the union and both parents must be citizens to be defined as "natural born citizen"

To be a citizen, must be born, where at least one parent is a citizen, in a state in the union or in a territory where the uSA claims and has legal jurisdiction - for examples, a territory/colony or a military base.

To be a citizen, must be born, where at least one parent, is a citizen, but the birth occurred in a foreign country because a parent was working as an official/employee of these uSA.

Under no circumstances a person is to work at any level of government, state or federal, who wears a foreign nation's uniform, or joins a foreign government, in any political or military capacity.

Under these rules, I would not be a natural born citizen even though, currently, l am considered one.

PS: time to amend the Constitution to do away with allowing more states into the union, except when a state in the union decides to split and Congress approves.

Expand full comment
Steve S6's avatar

Concur. Blood rule. Also eliminate dual citizenship. Before y'all get riled up here's my reasoning. Citizenship ultimately is about allegiance and that implies some level of conflict of interest. Can't have allegiance to two kings (be that royalty, constitution or what have you). Pick one.

On that note interesting about Taiwan since China itself does not allow dual citizenship. Makes one wonder if China is just making noise about absorbing Taiwan.

Expand full comment
Hominem Humilem's avatar

The People's Republic considers Taiwan a province of itself. So far as Beijing is concerned, everyone living on that island (other than foreign visitors living there temporarily) is a citizen of the People's Republic and entirely subject to Beijing's sovereignty.

Expand full comment
Steve S6's avatar

Exactly. From the post above "Would you be shocked to learn that the lion’s share of people using birth tourism in the United States are from West Taiwan". China removes the Chinese citizenship from anyone with another citizenship; can't stay or visit China. Bit of a conundrum there eh?

Expand full comment