Does being born in Florida make me a citizen of the United States as defined by the 14th amd to the constitut?
97306
If you are born in the usa then you are a citizen it doesn't matter which state you are born in.
1097188
Let me put it to you this way:\n\nThere is such a thing as America, and there is such a thing as an American citizen and their rights, you may not deny that.\n\nWE WILL NOT SUSPEND OUR CONTSTITUTION TO ACCOMODATE YOU OR BEND TO THE WILL OF ANOTHER COUNTRY.\n\nThank You.
737199
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part: \n\n"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, \nand subject to the jurisdiction thereof, \nare citizens of the United States \nand the State wherein they reside." \n\n\n\n\n\nBabies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders \nare called anchor babies \nbecause under the 1965 immigration Act, \nthey act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother \nand eventually a host of other relatives \ninto permanent U.S. residency. \n(Jackpot babies is another term). \n\nThe 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 \nto protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, \nwhose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. \nIn 1866, Senator Jacob Howard \nclearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: \n\n"Every person born within the limits of the United States, \nand subject to their jurisdiction, \nis by virtue of natural law and national law \na citizen of the United States. \nThis will not, of course, include persons born in the United States\nwho are foreigners or aliens, \nwho belong to the families of ambassadors \nor foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, \nbut will include every other class of persons. \nIt settles the great question of citizenship \nand removes all doubt as to what persons \nare or are not citizens of the United States. \nThis has long been a great desideratum \nin the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."\n\nThe correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment \nis that an illegal alien mother \nis subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, \nas is her baby.\n\nThe original intent of the 14th Amendment \nwas clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. \nlaw at taxpayer expense.\nSadly the amendment is now being employed to do just that.\n\n\n \nCurrent estimates indicate \nthere may be over 300,000 anchor babies \nborn each year in the U.S., \nthus causing illegal alien mothers \nto add more to the U.S. population each year \nthan immigration from all sources \nin an average year before 1965. \n\n\n\nPresent U.S. anchor baby "policy" \nis an abuse of the 14th Amendment.\nAn illegal alien can cross the border, \nhave a baby five minutes later, \nand that baby is automatically declared a citizen of the U.S.A.\n\nThe birth of an anchor baby is only the beginning. \nAs the child grows he or she is entitled \nto a multitude of other taxpayer-funded programs.\n \nSince most anchor babies are classified as "minorities", \nthey can expect to enjoy legal preference \nover "non-Hispanic white males" \nunder today's "civil rights" regime. \n\nUpon reaching adulthood, the citizen anchor baby \nis eligible to import relatives from the home country \nthrough America's nepotistic chain migration system , \nin which the principal qualification \nfor a prespective legal immigrant \nis having relatives already in the U.S. \n\nWhen you look at the vast cornucopia of benefits, \nyou have to conclude \nthat the U.S.A. offers powerful incentives for illegal immigration.\n\nFor those who disobey U.S. law and their children, \nAmerica is certainly the land of opportunity!\n\nThe anchor baby fiasco must be stopped. \nIt rewards illegal immigrants \nand encourages more illegal immigration. \nIt costs law-abiding taxpayers a bundle. \nIt makes it harder to control the border, reform immigration \nand rein in the runaway welfare state. \nAnd,  it cheapens American citizenship \nand mocks those who play by the rules.\n\n\n\nThe key to undoing the current misinterpretation \nof the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase\n \n"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF." \n\nThe whole problem is caused by the fact \nthat the meaning of this phrase, \nwhich was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, \nhas slipped with changes in usage. \nFortunately, there is a large group of court precedents \nthat ma
320046
can't unless you where born there. if you mean citizenship that's different.
1069625
r u a us citizen?  if  no them ur answer is NO
595688
The problem is that this (Fourteenth Amendment)has been misinterpreted in recent years to mean simply that anyone born in the U.S, under any circumstances, is an American citizen.\nThis is neither the original intent of the law nor the way it was interpreted by the courts in subsequent decades. Some Americans speak of birthright citizenship as if it were an immutable law of nature. \nIt is not, and most other nations do not, in fact, recognize it. It is only a BAD HABIT that could be broken with a simple Executive Order. \n\nAccording to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year. \nOnce a mother has birthed a child on American soil, she can then seek to obtain citizenship for herself on the strength of the family-reunification laws. \nEven before this happens, she is very hard to deport, as the mother of an American, and the full panoply of welfare benefits is available to her, as is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority.\n\nA group of attorneys and immigration experts are trying to do something about the problem RIGHT NOW. \n\nCraig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement Stated :\n"The situation we have today is absurd,There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. This was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."\n(Sound Familiar??)\n\nThe key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase\n\n"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF."\n\nThe whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means: \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment EXCLUDES the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)) \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))\n\nThe phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" REQUIRES "Direct And Immediate ALLEGIENCE" to the United States, NOT just physical presence. \n(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)) \n\nThere is NO automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) \n\nThe Supreme Court has NEVER confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. \n(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982)) \n\nThere are other cases referring to minor details of the question.\n\nThe so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. \nIn the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so-called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.\n\nThose facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.\n\nThe U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States. As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1.\n\nJudging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so-called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history. \nThe phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.” \n\nFor this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is prov
510579
Yes - people born in Puerto Rico or Guam (or other territories) are US citizens.\n\nIf, for example Puerto Rico were to decide to become independant, it would be up to the new government to decide how to settle the citizenship issue.
407753
The problem with The Fourteenth Amendment Is That it has been MISINTERPRETED  in recent years to mean simply that anyone born in the U.S, under any circumstances, is an American citizen.\nThis is neither the original intent of the law nor the way it was interpreted by the courts in subsequent decades. \nSome Americans speak of birthright citizenship as if it were an immutable law of nature. \nIt is NOT, and most other nations do not, in fact, recognize it. It is only a BAD HABIT that could be broken with a simple Executive Order. \n\nAccording to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year. \nOnce a mother has birthed a child on American soil, she can then seek to obtain citizenship for herself on the strength of the family-reunification laws. \nEven before this happens, she is very hard to deport, as the mother of an American, and the full panoply of welfare benefits is available to her, as is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority. \n\n"The situation we have today is absurd," alleges Craig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, \na group of attorneys and immigration experts that is trying to do something about the problem. \n"There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. \nThis was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."\n\nThe key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase\n \n"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF." \n\nThe whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means: \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment EXCLUDES the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)) \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))\n \nThe phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. \n(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)) \n\nThere is NO automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) \n\nThe Supreme Court has NEVER confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. \n(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982)) \n\nThere are other cases referring to minor details of the question.\n\nthe so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. \nIn the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), \nthe Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so-called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.\n\nThose facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. \nThe Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.\n\nThe U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States.\n As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1.\n\nJudging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so-called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history. \nThe phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.” \n\nFor this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment
656463
I will try it be short - no guarentees.. History can be long and complex.\n\nEver since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the main stream media. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means. \n\nDuring the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." \n\nThe author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John A Bingham (OH), responded to the above declaration as follows: "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." \n\nAlready before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have the entire Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this is law of the land. It just gets worst for advocates who want to either believe or, revise history, to support their fable that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural born citizen. \n\nSen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to the US Senate as follows: \n\n[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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, but will include every other class of persons. \n\nSo than, what exactly did subject to the jurisdiction mean? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth: \n\n[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. \n\nSen. Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's construction by saying: \n\n[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. \n\nMyths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception.\nCivil Rights bill of 1870 declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens. \n\nUS Su
995970
if you were born in the USA you are an American
624642
Because you mother is an American citizen, you are an American citizen. Don't worry. I was born in Italy with both my mom and dad being Americans so that makes me American by relation. Also some one who was born on U.S. soil is an American citizen.
944928
Hey I agree with you baby - if you were born in America then your American, if you were born in Africa then your African and if you were born in Africa and moved to America and became a legalized citizen then you are African American.
620272
Yes.  You do not need to be a citizen, but you must be a resident.\n\n(1) Entered the United States on a permanent residence visa or has an Alien Registration Receipt Card (INS Form 1-551/I-551 greencard or stamped I-94), and\n\n(2) Established a bona fide residence, and\n\n(3) Established a home of record in the United States.
826284
I was born there. Does that count?
420336
Section One of Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishes the requirements one must meet in order to become President. The president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States (or a citizen of the United States at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted), be at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.\n\nThe natural-born citizenship requirement has been the subject of controversy recently. Some commentators argue that the clause should be repealed because it excludes qualified people based on so-called "technicalities", and fails to appreciate the contributions made by immigrants to American society. Supporters counter that the requirement protects the United States from foreign interference — another country could send an emigrant to the United States and through subterfuge get them elected. Many prominent public officials are barred from the presidency because they are not natural-born citizens (for example, Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright, and Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Jennifer Granholm of Michigan), as well as other well-known persons born in other countries who have done great service for the United States (Bob Hope). Constitutional amendments are occasionally proposed to remove or modify this requirement, but none has been successful.
865823
please answer about your citizenship of which country?\nare you American? \nthis the embassy of the US in the Domincan Republic :\nhttp://www.usemb.gov.do/Consular/ACS/acs-e.htm
631841
Right now if you are born here,you are a citizen period.