The Natural Born Citizen Clause

After reading Debate 24, I cannot help but form my own personal opinion. I find myself supporting John Yinger 's point of view on the debate because I believe that not only natural-born citizens should be allowed to become president, but also naturalized citizens. If America has always been open to foreign-born immigrants becoming equal citizens, then why should the exception that only a natural-born citizen can become president exist? One of the greatest concerns enabling naturalized citizens to be eligible to become president is the fear of foreign influence

     Those opposed to ending the clause in the Birthright Citizenship Amendment will argue that… “The framers' intent was to create an objective basis for establishing citizenship—birth—not a subjective standard left to the whim of a majority. The United States has, for that reason, never struggled like other nations to integrate those born here” (Fitz, 2010). The thought process here is that those born natural citizens of the US from alien parents will always carry the stigma of having been the children of aliens. This could cause more undue injustice towards these people than the founding fathers wanted. After all, they were all alien to this soil.

The Center for Immigration Studies took a worldwide look in 2010 and found that "only 30 of the world's 194 countries grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens” (see Fig. 1).

If you look up the word naturalization you will find the following definition: to confer upon (an alien) the rights and privileges of a citizen. In reality this means nothing, it don’t really tell us much. When people think about the naturalization that definition is not what comes to mind. What comes to mind when thinking about naturalization is more like the word reborn or that it has something to do with nature. In reality that is true because the naturalization process is basically gives an opportunity to people who weren’t born in the United States to become citizens.

Over a century ago, the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution was implemented to grant citizenship to individuals born within the country. This was the first time that it was defined what it means to be a citizen in the U.S. While the amendment was created to address the citizenship of slaves, it is currently under speculation in regards to granting U.S. citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants (Gans, 2012). While there have been many arguments to place restrictions or eradicate granting children of undocumented immigrants U.S. citizenship, the constitutional right remains the same: if you are born on U.S. land, you are a citizen (Angelo, 2013). This paper argues that the birthright citizenship of U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants should continue to be granted based on the underlying principles of the 14th Amendment and the possible implications of ending birthright citizenship. First, this paper describes birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment, as well as its use in several Supreme Court cases that are significant to this issue. Then, various implications of eradicating birthright citizenship are discussed. Before discussing the possible consequences of eradicating birthright citizenship, it is imperative to discuss the history and principles underlying it.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 was an article of legislation that gave certain individuals the opportunity to apply for citizenship if they were being of good character, have lived in the United States for at least two years, or a free white person. When they receive approval by the courts and take on an oath of allegiance which was recorded. The individual 's citizenship also gets extended to their children under the age of 21, regardless of where there born. This Act acknowledged and granted citizenship to

Many people have different theories. As mentioned earlier, this clause in the Constitution is to protect the United States from influence from outside countries. What this means is that a group can form a conspiracy in which they plan to become the POTUS (President of the United States) and other major parts in government to keep the conspirators in power. This could lead to tyranny in the nation and utterly destroying what America stands for, Democracy. There are, however, good things that can come out of the removal of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. These foreign leaders could bring in new ideas and philosophies. This would be beneficial, but would you take the risk of being ruled by another country? I don't think you

To be able to understand the controversy surrounding the natural born citizen clause in the constitution, it is important to know why it was added to the constitution in the first place. The original purpose of this clause was to prevent the British rule from coming to America and taking charge (Hulse). The National Constitution Center staff quoted the natural born citizen clause in the constitution saying that “no person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution shall be eligible to the office of president” (“Natural Born”). This clause also allows children that are offspring of United States citizens that are born internationally to obtain citizenship (“Natural Born”). At the time when the

     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      (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html ).

In addition to the 22nd amendment being repealed, there have been several talks about also allowing foreign born to run for president. According to the USA Today, polls aren't showing favor for putting someone born in a foreign country in the top position as the President of the United States (Kasindorf, Martin, 2004) Also, according to the polls taken on USA Today 31% were for such an amendment, and 67% were against it (Kasindorf, Martin). It is said that while mentioning

The US Constitution is relevant to all those living, or citizens to, in the United States. Despite the constitution being for all, there are age limits to those running for office or council. It is established this way to prevent those who do not have the life experience, or are naive to hold office or council. This rule in the US Constitution contrasts to the old constitution because the Iroquois Constitution does not have a known written age limit. It suggests that anyone who is elected can be of power. This fact lead to a comparison to the two constitutions, both have the people of power elected by people to which belong to the nation(s). Both of them hold another similarity the two constitutions both have an elected “president” to unite the nation(s). Though the Iroquois elected president is elected to unite the five nations, instead of the country like the US

In 1868, the United States of America's Congress adopted the 14th Amendment to the Constitution stating that, "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

According to the fourteenth amendment website the fourteenth amendment “is currently misinterpreted to give citizenship to children born in the United States of illegal alien parents. These children, via their birthright citizenship, act as anchor babies and can, upon reaching the age of majority, facilitate bringing their extended family into the US in order to obtain citizenship. Although some experts believe that a Constitutional amendment would be necessary to remedy the misinterpretation, many believe that Congressional action would be sufficient and is urgently warranted.” Not until later was it seen “With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship” (Fourteen Amendment). This was basically a warning for immigrants stating they are responsible for their child and they would not become legal just because they were born in the United States and they would both be claimed by their native land. For example, if a woman from Mexico was to come to the United States illegally, at 8 months pregnant, and have her baby they would not just become legal citizens.

Become a citizen of one of the best nations in the world is a privilege that not many people have. I’m talking about the United States of America. If you are an U.S natural born citizen you have rights and responsibilities that protect you based on the Declaration of Independence and the U.S Constitution. People who are in the position to become U.S. citizens gain the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizenship as natural born American with the only restriction that they can’t be eligible for President of the United States.

There have been millions of people that are immigrants who try to become a citizen, in the United States. As far as they can become citizens, is as far of American history knowledge they have. The Naturalization Civics Test makes a person become a citizen a bit more easy. The Naturalization Civics Test is important, because even if you get 6 answers correct on the test, you still have a fifty percent chance to pass. The question was intended to be harder and more difficult to answer but became easier, if you study your history it’s an easy pass.