I have just read an article on the BBC that Barack Obama is a citizen of the USA because he was born in Hawaii, with a Kenyan father when Kenya was under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time.

But I am English, but born in Germany to an English mother, my Father was also English but born in India, but that part is now in Pakistan, when my Grandfather was serving in the British Army there.

And what of my Goddaughter, English Father, German mother and born in Italy.

So, how does place of birth, nationality decide your nationality, and should it affect your eligibility to do a job?

So, how does place of birth, nationality decide your nationality, and should it affect your eligibility to do a job?

Depends on which job you are talking about. The president of the USA must be born in the US by law.

---

Hehehe, and this is why Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot be the president of the USA. He was born in Austria.

Thats sad.

---

So, how does place of birth, nationality decide your nationality, and should it affect your eligibility to do a job?

Depends on which job you are talking about. The president of the USA must be born in the US by law.

But does it work the other way round. i.e. Can a child born in Africa to parents, both with USA citizenship become President? And if not why not?

I have just read an article on the BBC that Barack Obama is a citizen of the USA because he was born in Hawaii, with a Kenyan father when Kenya was under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time.

But I am English, but born in Germany to an English mother, my Father was also English but born in India, but that part is now in Pakistan, when my Grandfather was serving in the British Army there.

And what of my Goddaughter, English Father, German mother and born in Italy.

So, how does place of birth, nationality decide your nationality, and should it affect your eligibility to do a job?

That is up to the laws of the countires involved. In some cases where more that one country is involved each claims the person as a citizen and you have dual citizenship.

As for the USA, if you are born on US soil you are a US citizen.

To be president you have to be "natural born" but that isn't defined.

ok heres something that should get people talking.

John McCain was born in Panama on the US canal zone territory. This is an area that was rented from Panama to the US for a standard amount of years. People complained that Carter gave it away. It wasnt ours to begin with. yet I digress. So McCain being born in Panama still allows him to be candidate and pass muster as an American citizen. I don't deny he's a US citizen and the territory rented from Panama was American territory as long as we rented it.

Now lets look at Guantanamo bay where we are holding "terrorists" supposedly in a territory that isn't US territory. Well if the Panama example fits so does Guantanamo. The US rents Guantanamo bay from Cuba since the end of the SPanish American war. Cuba never cashes the rent checks. So these detainees are really on US territory. Which negates any argument that the Bushie made that the detainees aren't being held in the US and can't have arguements brought to the US Federal court system

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

So, how does place of birth, nationality decide your nationality, and should it affect your eligibility to do a job?

Depends on which job you are talking about. The president of the USA must be born in the US by law.

Or born before there was a USA. George Washington was not a natural born American ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Are you saying that even if all your ancestors way back to 1600 were born in the USA and due to foreign service by your parents you were born outside the USA then you cannot be President. But your brothers or sisters can, because they were born on US territory.

Are you saying that even if all your ancestors way back to 1600 were born in the USA and due to foreign service by your parents you were born outside the USA then you cannot be President. But your brothers or sisters can, because they were born on US territory.

No. [url]It is much more complicated that that[/url]. Oh, and nobody was born in the USA before 1776.

From FactCheck.org:

The US Congress declared in 1790: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

Which would appear to cover the example you provide.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Being President of the USA is not just about citizenship but also being born on US soil.

Here is a good solution to citizenship: I suggest two categories, First Generation Citizens and their Posterity.

First Generation Citizens are persons that are naturalized or were/are living on land when it became part of the USA. Naturalized means going through some legal process to become a citizen. Examples of people living on land when it became part of the USA would be people living in Delaware on December 7, 1787 or in North Carolina on November 21, 1789 or in Hawaii on August 21, 1959.

Posterity are children whose biological father and mother are both US citizens. If only one parent is a US citizen the child should go through some legal process to determine citizenship. For instance if the child was born in Vietnam - The child of a US soldier. If neither parent is a citizen the child is not a citizen unless he/she is Naturalized. Children born in the USA are not automatically citizens of the USA. The courts are WRONG!!

The courts misinterpreted "We the People". The militiamen that fought against the British and wrote the Declaration of Independance as well as the Constitution of the United States were "We the People". Many of us are their posterity. Simply being born in the USA does not make one part of "We the People"

Children born in the USA are not automatically citizens of the USA. The courts are WRONG!!

Well the courts may have been wrong before the 14th Amendment (Citizenship Rights) was ratified in 1868, but its text appears to suggest the courts have limited scope for interpretation:

1. 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.

I humbly disagree with your opening statement:

Being President of the USA is not just about citizenship but also being born on US soil.

Being President of the USA is constitutionally about being a "natural born citizen", that says nothing about being born on US soil. My previous comment from the 1790 Congress does go someway to define what a natural born citizen is, and coming from 1790, is likely to have been influenced by the views of the Founding Fathers, many of whom were still alive at the time.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

This is one of the problems I have with the courts. According to an article in Wikipedia, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, the Senator who allegedly authored the citizenship clause "described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"." I found this quote on page 2890 of The Congressional Globe dated May 30, 1866. It is in the center column 3/4 of the way down. This is a record of the debate that produced the 14th amendment. Senator Cowan stated "It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in a county has not heretofore entilted him to the right to exercise political power. The courts choose when to ignore the intent of the authors of legislation when the courts want to impose their views. Wouldn't that make Native Americans be citizens? Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) 'supreme.justia.com/us/112/94/case.html'

This is one of the problems I have with the courts. According to an article in Wikipedia, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, the Senator who allegedly authored the citizenship clause "described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"." I found this quote on page 2890 of The Congressional Globe dated May 30, 1866. It is in the center column 3/4 of the way down. This is a record of the debate that produced the 14th amendment. Senator Cowan stated "It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in a county has not heretofore entilted him to the right to exercise political power. The courts choose when to ignore the intent of the authors of legislation when the courts want to impose their views. Wouldn't that make Native Americans be citizens? Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) 'supreme.justia.com/us/112/94/case.html'

A bit of punctuation and a few links might help your case ;)

From judgepedia I found:

A drafter of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, noted:

"This 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 virture 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 embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

Nothing about "Indians" in that quote, just a comment about the children of embassadors or foreign ministers, who, by virtue of diplomatic immunity, would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US of A. His support (or lack thereof) for excluding Native Americans may not be as clear as you suggest, from the Congressional Globe page you referenced:

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I presume the honorable Senator from Michigan does not intend by this amendment to include Indians. I move, therefore, to amend the amendment - I presume he will have no objection to it - by inserting after the word "thereof" the words "excluding Indians not taxed". The amendment would then read:

All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.

Mr. HOWARD. I hope that amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and have always been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.

Judging by his objection to Doolittle's amendment, perhaps Senator Howard was thinking that the relationship between the United States and the Native American tribes might change, and did not want the 14th Amendment to set up a Consitutional barrier to Native Americans becoming citizens at a later date. Senator Doolittle clearly did want such a barrier, arguing in the same debate:

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I moved this amendment because it seems to me very clear that there is a large mass of the Indian population who are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who ought not to be included as citizens of the United States ...

Whatever Senators Howard and Doolittle were thinking, the Supreme Court case you referenced decided that the "subject to the jurisdication thereof" clause also applied to Native Americans. Congress overturned this (as is it's Constitutional perogative on matters of naturalization) via Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

So what exactly is your disagreement with the courts wrong on the matter of citizenship?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

No one would intentionally create Anchor Babies. The authors of the 14th amendent made no provision for the parents of these "persons born". An adult or child who is naturalized does not require another possibly non-citizen to gain admittance into the USA. An infant baby requires constant care, yet the parents may not be citizens and could be asked or required to leave. There are three possibilities: 1) The child stays but the parents leave if they cannot become naturalized. 2) The child a US citizen leaves with the parents. 3) The parents get to stay, a reward for having a baby. The 14th amendent is about dealing with former slaves. These former slaves were granted citizenship. And the states could not take it away.

The reason for the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was because Elk v. Wilkins 1884 ruled Indians are not citizens of the US. I do not completely understand "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", but the 14th amendent does not give citizenship purely as a result of birthplace.

My last disagreement with the courts is the use of English Common Law tradition. We fought a war to get out from under English Law. English Common Law excludes from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: 1) children born to foreign diplomats and 2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The Supreme Court in "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)" cited English Common Law. This case delt with the children of a Chinese couple living legally and operating a business in San Francisco, California. The court granted citizenship to the children of the legal aliens. Chief Justice Melville Fuller, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice John Harlan and cited the 14th amendent claming the children were not US citizens because their parents were subject to China. Please see the artical in Wikipedia as a starting place and then please look up the actual Supreme Court decisions.

"We fought a war to get out from under English Law." Really? I thought it was to get out from under the rule of a despotic and tyrannical King. The Declaration of Independence makes no mention of English Common Law, though if the objective was to create a new body of law to replace it, the Founding Fathers failed to mention that in the text of the Consitution. The US Federal and State Courts (except Louisiana) employ Common Law and always have done, if this is wrong then surely there would have been an amendment as part of the Bill of Rights? The idea that when the US was formed it was lawless except for the Constitution is bizarre, there was a body of law that people subscribed to, English Common Law, and this continues to be used until such time that Congress passes new law, or the Constitution, replaces it.

If the 14th Amendment was solely to deal with slaves it would have said so, and because it doesn't mention slaves, it can only mean that it has a more general purpose. WRT "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)", that English Common Law supports the decision made more than 30 years after Howard said "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already", suggests that he was trying to make unwritten English Common Law explicit in the Constitution and the dissenters were wrong to object on grounds of the Amendment he drafted.

If you do not understand the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", we're probably going to go round in circles. To me it's quite clear why the children of diplomats, ambassadors and others with diplomatic immunity would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but all other children born today on US territory would be. I suspect your reference to Anchor Badies is related to a concern regarding the legal status of the children of illegal aliens, and that you object to such children being granted US citizenship, but until you explicitly state this, I will not make further comment.

Finally, I asked for links in my previous post, perhaps you could provide one next time. They are relatively simple to add in to posts, e.g. one I placed earlier:

[ url=http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html ]Declaration of Independence[ /url ]

without the spaces between the [s and ]s becomes:

Declaration of Independence

Follow the BBCode link for more details.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...