Is American citizenship automatic when born on US soil?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The US constitution states that
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the
State wherein they reside.
Does this mean that anyone who is born in the US is automatically a US citizen, whether they want it or not? Or does this amendment just offer the possibility of requesting citizenship?
In other words: is there an action to be made in order to become a US citizen when born in the US (and therefore one is not before this action is performed)?
Note: this question is different from another one which deals with the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part. Mine is about the automatism (or lack of) of the acquisition.
united-states us-constitution citizenship
asked 57 mins ago
WoJ
1635
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The US constitution states that
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the
State wherein they reside.
Does this mean that anyone who is born in the US is automatically a US citizen, whether they want it or not? Or does this amendment just offer the possibility of requesting citizenship?
In other words: is there an action to be made in order to become a US citizen when born in the US (and therefore one is not before this action is performed)?
Note: this question is different from another one which deals with the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part. Mine is about the automatism (or lack of) of the acquisition.
united-states us-constitution citizenship
asked 57 mins ago
WoJ
1635
Possible duplicate of What is the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof†in the 14th amendment?
– David Siegel
54 mins ago
@DavidSiegel I would distinguish this question from the other because this one asks not about the meaning of the jurisdiction clause but about whether citizenship must be asserted by some affirmative act.
– phoog
49 mins ago
@DavidSiegel: I updated my question - it is not a duplicate indeed.
– WoJ
44 mins ago
I have retracted my vote to close as a duplicate
– David Siegel
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The US constitution states that
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the
State wherein they reside.
Does this mean that anyone who is born in the US is automatically a US citizen, whether they want it or not? Or does this amendment just offer the possibility of requesting citizenship?
In other words: is there an action to be made in order to become a US citizen when born in the US (and therefore one is not before this action is performed)?
Note: this question is different from another one which deals with the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part. Mine is about the automatism (or lack of) of the acquisition.
united-states us-constitution citizenship
asked 57 mins ago
WoJ
1635
The US constitution states that
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the
State wherein they reside.
Does this mean that anyone who is born in the US is automatically a US citizen, whether they want it or not? Or does this amendment just offer the possibility of requesting citizenship?
In other words: is there an action to be made in order to become a US citizen when born in the US (and therefore one is not before this action is performed)?
Note: this question is different from another one which deals with the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part. Mine is about the automatism (or lack of) of the acquisition.
united-states us-constitution citizenship
united-states us-constitution citizenship
asked 57 mins ago
WoJ
1635
asked 57 mins ago
WoJ
1635
edited 44 mins ago
asked 57 mins ago
WoJ
1635
asked 57 mins ago
WoJ
1635
asked 57 mins ago
WoJ
1635
1635
Possible duplicate of What is the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof†in the 14th amendment?
– David Siegel
54 mins ago
@DavidSiegel I would distinguish this question from the other because this one asks not about the meaning of the jurisdiction clause but about whether citizenship must be asserted by some affirmative act.
– phoog
49 mins ago
@DavidSiegel: I updated my question - it is not a duplicate indeed.
– WoJ
44 mins ago
I have retracted my vote to close as a duplicate
– David Siegel
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Possible duplicate of What is the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof†in the 14th amendment?
– David Siegel
54 mins ago
@DavidSiegel I would distinguish this question from the other because this one asks not about the meaning of the jurisdiction clause but about whether citizenship must be asserted by some affirmative act.
– phoog
49 mins ago
@DavidSiegel: I updated my question - it is not a duplicate indeed.
– WoJ
44 mins ago
I have retracted my vote to close as a duplicate
– David Siegel
35 mins ago
Possible duplicate of What is the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof†in the 14th amendment?
– David Siegel
54 mins ago
Possible duplicate of What is the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof†in the 14th amendment?
– David Siegel
54 mins ago
@DavidSiegel I would distinguish this question from the other because this one asks not about the meaning of the jurisdiction clause but about whether citizenship must be asserted by some affirmative act.
– phoog
49 mins ago
@DavidSiegel I would distinguish this question from the other because this one asks not about the meaning of the jurisdiction clause but about whether citizenship must be asserted by some affirmative act.
– phoog
49 mins ago
@DavidSiegel: I updated my question - it is not a duplicate indeed.
– WoJ
44 mins ago
@DavidSiegel: I updated my question - it is not a duplicate indeed.
– WoJ
44 mins ago
I have retracted my vote to close as a duplicate
– David Siegel
35 mins ago
I have retracted my vote to close as a duplicate
– David Siegel
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Does this mean that anyone who is born in the US is automatically a US citizen, whether they want it or not?
Yes (subject to a couple of exceptions, namely the children of diplomats with full immunity and the children of a hostile foreign occupier).
Or does this amendment just offer the possibility of requesting citizenship? In other words: is there an action to be made in order to become a US citizen when born in the US (and therefore one is not before this action is performed)?
No. For someone who falls under the 14th amendment's citizenship clause, the only way to avoid being a US citizen is to relinquish or renounce it, which generally means that one is stuck with the US citizenship for at least 18 years.
Most countries' citizenship laws, or at least all of those with which I am familiar, operate this way for "normal" cases of acquisition of citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of birth.
answered 54 mins ago
phoog
7,14711335
1
Repeated throughout the Wong decision is the implication that Wong's parents might have acted to renounce his citizenship during is minority...but did not.
– Cos Callis
38 mins ago
Persons born on board a foreign naval vessel, even if in US waters or indeed if docked at a US port, are also an exception, not that I suppose this come up much. The Wong Kim Ark decision mentions this, but uses the now outdated term "public vessel".
– David Siegel
30 mins ago
1
@CosCallis that might have been possible in those days, but today it is not.
– phoog
30 mins ago
@DavidSiegel thanks for mentioning that; I had wondered what "public vessel" meant. By "naval vessel" do you mean mean specifically a military ship, as opposed to any ship of foreign registry or ownership? What about coast guard vessels? What about entirely nonmilitary government-owned vessels?
– phoog
25 mins ago
@phoog : As I read the mentions in the WKA decision, it would mean any military vessel. At that time most countries did not distinguish navy from coast guard. I am sure that it would not include non-government foreign ships, those would be "private", not "public". I am not sure about civilian government ships of other countries. I doubt there has been a case in US courts turning on that point.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
If you're assuming that the child is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the child is a citizen of the United States, immediately upon birth.
No waiting, no paperwork, no red tape.
answered 32 mins ago
bdb484
9,29111332
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Does this mean that anyone who is born in the US is automatically a US citizen, whether they want it or not?
Yes (subject to a couple of exceptions, namely the children of diplomats with full immunity and the children of a hostile foreign occupier).
Or does this amendment just offer the possibility of requesting citizenship? In other words: is there an action to be made in order to become a US citizen when born in the US (and therefore one is not before this action is performed)?
No. For someone who falls under the 14th amendment's citizenship clause, the only way to avoid being a US citizen is to relinquish or renounce it, which generally means that one is stuck with the US citizenship for at least 18 years.
Most countries' citizenship laws, or at least all of those with which I am familiar, operate this way for "normal" cases of acquisition of citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of birth.
answered 54 mins ago
phoog
7,14711335
1
Repeated throughout the Wong decision is the implication that Wong's parents might have acted to renounce his citizenship during is minority...but did not.
– Cos Callis
38 mins ago
Persons born on board a foreign naval vessel, even if in US waters or indeed if docked at a US port, are also an exception, not that I suppose this come up much. The Wong Kim Ark decision mentions this, but uses the now outdated term "public vessel".
– David Siegel
30 mins ago
1
@CosCallis that might have been possible in those days, but today it is not.
– phoog
30 mins ago
@DavidSiegel thanks for mentioning that; I had wondered what "public vessel" meant. By "naval vessel" do you mean mean specifically a military ship, as opposed to any ship of foreign registry or ownership? What about coast guard vessels? What about entirely nonmilitary government-owned vessels?
– phoog
25 mins ago
@phoog : As I read the mentions in the WKA decision, it would mean any military vessel. At that time most countries did not distinguish navy from coast guard. I am sure that it would not include non-government foreign ships, those would be "private", not "public". I am not sure about civilian government ships of other countries. I doubt there has been a case in US courts turning on that point.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
3
down vote
Does this mean that anyone who is born in the US is automatically a US citizen, whether they want it or not?
Yes (subject to a couple of exceptions, namely the children of diplomats with full immunity and the children of a hostile foreign occupier).
Or does this amendment just offer the possibility of requesting citizenship? In other words: is there an action to be made in order to become a US citizen when born in the US (and therefore one is not before this action is performed)?
No. For someone who falls under the 14th amendment's citizenship clause, the only way to avoid being a US citizen is to relinquish or renounce it, which generally means that one is stuck with the US citizenship for at least 18 years.
Most countries' citizenship laws, or at least all of those with which I am familiar, operate this way for "normal" cases of acquisition of citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of birth.
answered 54 mins ago
phoog
7,14711335
1
Repeated throughout the Wong decision is the implication that Wong's parents might have acted to renounce his citizenship during is minority...but did not.
– Cos Callis
38 mins ago
Persons born on board a foreign naval vessel, even if in US waters or indeed if docked at a US port, are also an exception, not that I suppose this come up much. The Wong Kim Ark decision mentions this, but uses the now outdated term "public vessel".
– David Siegel
30 mins ago
1
@CosCallis that might have been possible in those days, but today it is not.
– phoog
30 mins ago
@DavidSiegel thanks for mentioning that; I had wondered what "public vessel" meant. By "naval vessel" do you mean mean specifically a military ship, as opposed to any ship of foreign registry or ownership? What about coast guard vessels? What about entirely nonmilitary government-owned vessels?
– phoog
25 mins ago
@phoog : As I read the mentions in the WKA decision, it would mean any military vessel. At that time most countries did not distinguish navy from coast guard. I am sure that it would not include non-government foreign ships, those would be "private", not "public". I am not sure about civilian government ships of other countries. I doubt there has been a case in US courts turning on that point.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Does this mean that anyone who is born in the US is automatically a US citizen, whether they want it or not?
Yes (subject to a couple of exceptions, namely the children of diplomats with full immunity and the children of a hostile foreign occupier).
Or does this amendment just offer the possibility of requesting citizenship? In other words: is there an action to be made in order to become a US citizen when born in the US (and therefore one is not before this action is performed)?
No. For someone who falls under the 14th amendment's citizenship clause, the only way to avoid being a US citizen is to relinquish or renounce it, which generally means that one is stuck with the US citizenship for at least 18 years.
Most countries' citizenship laws, or at least all of those with which I am familiar, operate this way for "normal" cases of acquisition of citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of birth.
answered 54 mins ago
phoog
7,14711335
Does this mean that anyone who is born in the US is automatically a US citizen, whether they want it or not?
Yes (subject to a couple of exceptions, namely the children of diplomats with full immunity and the children of a hostile foreign occupier).
Or does this amendment just offer the possibility of requesting citizenship? In other words: is there an action to be made in order to become a US citizen when born in the US (and therefore one is not before this action is performed)?
No. For someone who falls under the 14th amendment's citizenship clause, the only way to avoid being a US citizen is to relinquish or renounce it, which generally means that one is stuck with the US citizenship for at least 18 years.
Most countries' citizenship laws, or at least all of those with which I am familiar, operate this way for "normal" cases of acquisition of citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of birth.
answered 54 mins ago
phoog
7,14711335
answered 54 mins ago
phoog
7,14711335
answered 54 mins ago
phoog
7,14711335
answered 54 mins ago
phoog
7,14711335
7,14711335
1
Repeated throughout the Wong decision is the implication that Wong's parents might have acted to renounce his citizenship during is minority...but did not.
– Cos Callis
38 mins ago
Persons born on board a foreign naval vessel, even if in US waters or indeed if docked at a US port, are also an exception, not that I suppose this come up much. The Wong Kim Ark decision mentions this, but uses the now outdated term "public vessel".
– David Siegel
30 mins ago
1
@CosCallis that might have been possible in those days, but today it is not.
– phoog
30 mins ago
@DavidSiegel thanks for mentioning that; I had wondered what "public vessel" meant. By "naval vessel" do you mean mean specifically a military ship, as opposed to any ship of foreign registry or ownership? What about coast guard vessels? What about entirely nonmilitary government-owned vessels?
– phoog
25 mins ago
@phoog : As I read the mentions in the WKA decision, it would mean any military vessel. At that time most countries did not distinguish navy from coast guard. I am sure that it would not include non-government foreign ships, those would be "private", not "public". I am not sure about civilian government ships of other countries. I doubt there has been a case in US courts turning on that point.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1
Repeated throughout the Wong decision is the implication that Wong's parents might have acted to renounce his citizenship during is minority...but did not.
– Cos Callis
38 mins ago
Persons born on board a foreign naval vessel, even if in US waters or indeed if docked at a US port, are also an exception, not that I suppose this come up much. The Wong Kim Ark decision mentions this, but uses the now outdated term "public vessel".
– David Siegel
30 mins ago
1
@CosCallis that might have been possible in those days, but today it is not.
– phoog
30 mins ago
@DavidSiegel thanks for mentioning that; I had wondered what "public vessel" meant. By "naval vessel" do you mean mean specifically a military ship, as opposed to any ship of foreign registry or ownership? What about coast guard vessels? What about entirely nonmilitary government-owned vessels?
– phoog
25 mins ago
@phoog : As I read the mentions in the WKA decision, it would mean any military vessel. At that time most countries did not distinguish navy from coast guard. I am sure that it would not include non-government foreign ships, those would be "private", not "public". I am not sure about civilian government ships of other countries. I doubt there has been a case in US courts turning on that point.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
1
1
Repeated throughout the Wong decision is the implication that Wong's parents might have acted to renounce his citizenship during is minority...but did not.
– Cos Callis
38 mins ago
Repeated throughout the Wong decision is the implication that Wong's parents might have acted to renounce his citizenship during is minority...but did not.
– Cos Callis
38 mins ago
Persons born on board a foreign naval vessel, even if in US waters or indeed if docked at a US port, are also an exception, not that I suppose this come up much. The Wong Kim Ark decision mentions this, but uses the now outdated term "public vessel".
– David Siegel
30 mins ago
Persons born on board a foreign naval vessel, even if in US waters or indeed if docked at a US port, are also an exception, not that I suppose this come up much. The Wong Kim Ark decision mentions this, but uses the now outdated term "public vessel".
– David Siegel
30 mins ago
1
1
@CosCallis that might have been possible in those days, but today it is not.
– phoog
30 mins ago
@CosCallis that might have been possible in those days, but today it is not.
– phoog
30 mins ago
@DavidSiegel thanks for mentioning that; I had wondered what "public vessel" meant. By "naval vessel" do you mean mean specifically a military ship, as opposed to any ship of foreign registry or ownership? What about coast guard vessels? What about entirely nonmilitary government-owned vessels?
– phoog
25 mins ago
@DavidSiegel thanks for mentioning that; I had wondered what "public vessel" meant. By "naval vessel" do you mean mean specifically a military ship, as opposed to any ship of foreign registry or ownership? What about coast guard vessels? What about entirely nonmilitary government-owned vessels?
– phoog
25 mins ago
@phoog : As I read the mentions in the WKA decision, it would mean any military vessel. At that time most countries did not distinguish navy from coast guard. I am sure that it would not include non-government foreign ships, those would be "private", not "public". I am not sure about civilian government ships of other countries. I doubt there has been a case in US courts turning on that point.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
@phoog : As I read the mentions in the WKA decision, it would mean any military vessel. At that time most countries did not distinguish navy from coast guard. I am sure that it would not include non-government foreign ships, those would be "private", not "public". I am not sure about civilian government ships of other countries. I doubt there has been a case in US courts turning on that point.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
If you're assuming that the child is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the child is a citizen of the United States, immediately upon birth.
No waiting, no paperwork, no red tape.
answered 32 mins ago
bdb484
9,29111332
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
If you're assuming that the child is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the child is a citizen of the United States, immediately upon birth.
No waiting, no paperwork, no red tape.
answered 32 mins ago
bdb484
9,29111332
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
If you're assuming that the child is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the child is a citizen of the United States, immediately upon birth.
No waiting, no paperwork, no red tape.
answered 32 mins ago
bdb484
9,29111332
If you're assuming that the child is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the child is a citizen of the United States, immediately upon birth.
No waiting, no paperwork, no red tape.
answered 32 mins ago
bdb484
9,29111332
answered 32 mins ago
bdb484
9,29111332
answered 32 mins ago
bdb484
9,29111332
answered 32 mins ago
bdb484
9,29111332
9,29111332
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33235%2fis-american-citizenship-automatic-when-born-on-us-soil%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Possible duplicate of What is the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof†in the 14th amendment?
– David Siegel
54 mins ago
@DavidSiegel I would distinguish this question from the other because this one asks not about the meaning of the jurisdiction clause but about whether citizenship must be asserted by some affirmative act.
– phoog
49 mins ago
@DavidSiegel: I updated my question - it is not a duplicate indeed.
– WoJ
44 mins ago
I have retracted my vote to close as a duplicate
– David Siegel
35 mins ago