Do children born in us to illegal immigrants become US citizens?

Answer 1

No, neither does marrying a US citizen automatically instate citizenship upon a foreign national. Children born in the US, regardless of the status of their parents are considered natural born US citizens.

Answer 2

yes because it was born in the U.S

Hmm?I could be wrong but I believe you are a legal citizen of wherever it is that you are born? Did you mean that the child was born in the US or outside of it? AnswerOnly if a child is born with in the United States is considered legal. If the a child is born outside the United State is consider an illegal alien. AnswerIf at least one of the parents is a legal US citizen (NOT a U.S. resident, but a U.S. citizen), then any natural child of that parent is a U.S. citizen, regardless of where the child was born. A citizen child born outside the U.S. sovereign soil is not considered "natural born", but the only place in U.S. law that this is relevant is for eligibility to be come President or Vice President (i.e. only "natural born" citizens can become President/VP).

Should a U.S. citizen adopt a child who is NOT a U.S. citizen (i.e. either a straight adoption, or as a step-parent adoption), then that child is eligible for U.S. citizenship via Naturalization. Naturalization is not automatic, and requires a legal procedure to be followed, generally taking a year or more. In the mean time, the child is eligible for automatic U.S. Residency, provided a basic Immigration form is filed to declare the child's adoption.

All of the preceding is true without regard to whom the other parent is (or their immigration status).

Answer 3

The order of law invovled, jus soli, was enacted with the 14th amendment to grant citizenship to all aboriginal people of continent US and extraterritorial regions under US control.

Jus soli was enacted as a measure of good faith and to aid the integration of foreign nationalities into American citizenry.

Legally, the current situation is that any child born on US soil is a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parent(s)' immigration status.

The Citizens Act of 1924 is where Congress legally indicated that there are two classes of what is known as "birthright" citizens: (1) those born in the U.S. (and areas of U.S. sovereignty), and (b) persons born on Native American reservations. The second instance was added because, at the time, Indian Reservations were technically sovereign, not U.S. soil. This was later changed, and all Native American reservations are now fully part of the sovereign U.S.

The latest relevant Supreme Court case, U.S. v Won Kim Ark (1898), is currently the definitive precedent, stating that birthright citizenship legally exists, without regard to the parent's legal immigration status. The sole exception (and, the ruling is explicit in this manner) to birthright citizenship is if BOTH parents are covered by diplomatic protection. This is the current Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

All of this is based on the Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is the Constitutional basis for defining U.S. citizenship.

And, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was NOT to implement jus soli (that's misguided). That was a (perhaps unintended) side effect of the way the 14th was written. The actual purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to the former slaves, and, as such, included a very broad definition of citizen, to insure that no loopholes could be used to deny citizenship to former slaves.

Broadly, the modern "problem" (and, I quote "problem" since there is by no means consensus that it actually is a problem) is that there was no concept of "legal" or "illegal" immigration until the mid 1900s. As such, the courts have interpreted all the prior legislation (and Amendments) to apply as written, which is to anyone in the U.S.

Despite some creative legal ideas by several Law Professors, it is highly unlikely that any change in Birthright Citizenship can pass a Supreme Court challenge, under existing law/precedent. It is almost certain that a Constitutional Amendment would be necessary to distinguish between legal and illegal residents (and their associated rights).

For further reading, look at the link below, which is the actual US Code (i.e Law itself), where it is spelled out explicitly who is a U.S. citizen. This US Code is the result of the court rulings and Congressional legislation.

Answer 4

No, but they are because of the 14th amendment.

The concept of 'anchor babies' exists almost no where else, and is a serious issue in the illegal alien controversy.

I would prefer to see citizenship require at least one legal parent.

Frankly, it's a red-herring issue. The number of so-called "anchor babies" is small, and has little impact on actual policy. Having a child as a legal US citizen does NOT impact the parent(s) legal status, nor does it impact their treatment. In order to sponsor someone from residency here in the U.S., you must be a citizen AND at least 18 years old. So, having an "anchor baby" doesn't entitle the parents to stay, as their child cannot sponsor them. In addition, as the child is a citizen of the same country as the parents (besides being a US citizen), Immigration Courts consider it just fine that you can deport the parents back to their original country, and that the child should be just fine to go with them (being a citizen of the country that their parents are being deported back to). In other words, having an "anchor baby" doesn't help the parents stay here one bit. One last issue here: you cannot sponsor for residency anyone here illegally. They have to leave the country before you can apply for sponsorship. (Sponsorship can only be done for those here legally, or for someone in a residing in foreign country.)

As an aside, most discussion of "anchor babies" in the public media/political arena (though not the above 1st reply) tends to lump legal residents (or legal visitors) in with "illegals". That is, much of the debate seems to be that citizenship should only come to one who has at least one CITIZEN as a parent, not just at least one parent as a legal resident. This particular viewpoint is rather xenophobic, particularly for a country which is built entirely upon immigration.

In the end, the whole topic has the trappings of an election-year hot-button issue: it appeals to certain individuals, invokes an emotional response, and is generally of little or no real actual impact or importance.

Answer 5

Yes, and therein lies the problem with undocumeneted immigrants in the USA. The children have the right to remain in USA while the undocumented parent(s) face deportation.

Answer 6

Like many things, it depends on the circumstances. Typically, a child born in a foreign country with one U.S. citizen parent is entitled to American citizenship.

Answer 7

Yes. If you were born in the US then you are a US citizen.

Answer 8

Because they were born in america