Omar Bennett
The topic of citizenship in the United States Constitution is a complex and evolving issue, with various amendments and interpretations shaping the country's approach to this fundamental aspect of national identity. The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, is a cornerstone of American civil rights, guaranteeing birthright citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. This amendment overturned the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which infamously ruled that African Americans were not eligible for citizenship. The Citizenship Clause, found within the Fourteenth Amendment, ensures that constitutional citizenship is based on the law of the soil rather than blood, marking a significant shift in American identity. However, the original Constitution lacked a clear rule on citizenship, and the country's history includes numerous legal challenges and legislative encounters related to citizenship acquisition and retention, especially regarding naturalized citizens and birthright citizenship.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Citizenship Clause | All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside |
| Citizenship Clause Exceptions | Children of foreign diplomats, children of enemy aliens, children of members of Indian tribes, children born on vessels in US territorial waters or on the high seas |
| Citizenship by Birth | Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, granting citizenship to any person born within the territory of the United States |
| Citizenship by Ancestry | Not mentioned in the Constitution; citizenship is based on the law of the soil, not the law of blood |
| Naturalized Citizens | Have the same rights and privileges as citizens by birth, but their retention of citizenship may not be as secure |
| Dual Citizens | The Supreme Court has upheld the power to divest a dual national of US citizenship if they vote in another country |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Fourteenth Amendment
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment reversed a portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which had ruled that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States. The Amendment repudiated this shameful decision and restored the traditional precepts of citizenship by birth, ensuring that all persons born in the United States, regardless of race, were entitled to citizenship. This marked an important shift in American identity, establishing a simple national rule for citizenship: if you are born in America, you are a US citizen.
The Citizenship Clause has been interpreted to include those born in the United States to non-citizen parents, including children of non-citizen immigrants and Chinese parents who were ineligible for naturalization. However, it has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States. For example, it excludes those born to foreign diplomats and certain members of Indian tribes with limited political relations with the US. Additionally, Congress has further specified that US citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the US when their mother was unlawfully present in the country and the father was not a US citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Amending the Constitution: A Step-by-Step Guide
You may want to see also
Birthright citizenship
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship, which is a legal principle under which citizenship is automatically granted to individuals upon birth. Birthright citizenship is based on the idea of jus soli, a Latin term meaning "right of the soil", which means that citizenship is granted based on the place of birth, rather than the citizenship of one's parents.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside". This clause was drafted against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Act, and it was understood to withhold birthright citizenship from the children of foreign diplomats and certain members of Indian tribes. The Citizenship Clause was further clarified by the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that children born in the US to immigrant parents are citizens, regardless of their parents' immigration status.
While birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of American civil rights, it has also been the subject of controversy and political debate. There have been recent attacks on the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with legislators at both the national and state levels introducing bills that would deny US citizenship to certain individuals. Additionally, President Donald Trump had attempted to end birthright citizenship for babies of undocumented immigrants through an executive order, which was blocked by the Supreme Court.
The controversy over citizenship dates back to the pre-Civil War era, when state and national citizenship were highly contested issues. The Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857 highlighted the racial limitations on citizenship, as the Court concluded that Scott, a slave, was not a citizen of any state due to his African descent.
Despite the ongoing debates and attempts to restrict birthright citizenship, it remains a fundamental principle enshrined in the US Constitution, guaranteeing that anyone born within the territory of the United States is a US citizen.
The First Amendment Protects Military Chaplaincy
You may want to see also
Naturalized citizens
The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all parts of the world. During the last decade, USCIS welcomed more than 7.9 million naturalized citizens. Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a lawful permanent resident after meeting the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
To be eligible for naturalization, an applicant must fulfill certain eligibility requirements set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The requirements generally include being a lawful permanent resident (LPR) for at least five years. There are also other special naturalization provisions that exempt certain applicants from the residency and/or physical presence requirements. For instance, an applicant married to a U.S. citizen only needs to be an LPR for three years. Other exemptions include serving in the U.S. military, being a child of a U.S. citizen, or being the parent of a U.S. citizen aged over 21.
To meet these requirements and become a naturalized citizen, applicants must pass an English test (which includes understanding, speaking, reading, and writing) and a civics test. If applicants meet certain age or disability qualifications, they may not have to take the civics or English test.
Most people who naturalized came to the United States as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or through family-sponsored preference categories, followed by employment-based preference categories, refugees and asylees, and the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program.
Paying Teachers: Constitutional Rights and Responsibilities
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$17.99 $27.99
Corporations and citizenship
The concept of "corporate personhood" refers to the ongoing legal debate over whether rights traditionally associated with natural persons should also be afforded to juridical persons, including corporations. While the original public meaning of Article III of the US Constitution referred to "citizens" as only natural persons, the judicial power of the United States has been granted over controversies between "citizens" of different states. This has led to the question of whether corporations, as citizens of the state in which they are incorporated and operate, can be considered citizens within the original meaning of Article III.
The debate surrounding corporate personhood has resulted in US courts extending certain constitutional protections to corporations. An early perspective, known as the 'contractual', 'associate', or 'aggregate' theory, asserts that owners of property have certain constitutional protections, even when the property is held via a corporation. Additionally, the 'real entity' or 'natural entity' view shifts the presumption of corporate regulation against the states. This perspective was dominant from the 1920s to the 1980s and argued that granting corporate rights should be governed by the consequences.
Treating juridical persons as having legal rights has several implications. It allows corporations to sue and be sued, provides a single entity for taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions, and protects the rights of shareholders and their freedom of association. However, corporations generally cannot claim constitutional protections that are not available to groups of individuals. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for corporations.
The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a notable example of the intersection of corporations and citizenship. The Court's decision reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions, enabling corporations to spend unlimited money on elections. This ruling has been controversial, with overwhelming majorities of Americans expressing disapproval and calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn it.
Understanding HOA Package Receipt and Its Legal Implications
You may want to see also
Dual citizenship
The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, states:
> "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."
This amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people, guaranteeing equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens. It repudiated the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had misinterpreted the Constitution as excluding people of African descent from eligibility for US citizenship based on their race.
It is important to note that while dual citizenship is not prohibited, there may be specific laws and considerations that apply. For example, US citizens holding another country's citizenship may still be subject to certain obligations, such as taxation or military service, in the other country. Additionally, the acquisition of foreign citizenship may impact an individual's rights and responsibilities as a US citizen, particularly in matters of national security or government employment.
In conclusion, while the concept of dual citizenship is not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause provides the framework for understanding citizenship status, and it does not preclude individuals from holding citizenship in two countries as long as they meet the criteria outlined in the Amendment.
ObamaCare: Constitutional?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Citizenship Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states 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 wherein they reside."
Birthright citizenship is a legal principle under which citizenship is automatically granted to individuals upon birth. There are two forms: ancestry-based citizenship and birthplace-based citizenship (also known as jus soli, or "right of the soil").
Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that every child born "within the jurisdiction of the United States" is a US citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration or citizenship status. This principle was confirmed by the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
There have been attempts to restrict birthright citizenship, such as President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for babies of undocumented immigrants. However, the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to protect this right, and courts have upheld the principle of birthright citizenship in various cases.
