Birthright Citizenship in the United States

Birthright Citizenship in the United States Birthright citizenship in the United States is the legal principle that any person born on U.S. soil automatically and immediately becomes a U.S. citizen. It contrasts with U.S. citizenship obtained through naturalization or acquisition- citizenship granted by virtue of being born abroad to at least one U.S. citizen parent. A â€Å"birthright† is defined as any right or privilege to which a person is entitled by virtue of birth. Long challenged in both the courts of law and public opinion, the policy of birthright citizenship remains highly controversial today, particularly when applied to children born to undocumented immigrant parents. Key Takeaways: Birthright Citizenship Birthright citizenship is the legal principle that any person born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a citizen of the United States.Birthright citizenship was established in1868 by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and confirmed by the US Supreme Court in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark.Birthright citizenship is granted to persons born in the 50 U.S. states and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.Today, birthright citizenship is a highly controversial issue as it applies to children born to parents who have entered the United States illegally. Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis Citizenship Birthright citizenship is based on the principle of â€Å"jus soli,† a Latin term meaning â€Å"right of the soil.† According to jus soli, a person’s citizenship is determined by their place of birth. As in the United States, jus soli is the most common means by which citizenship is acquired. Jus Soli is in contrast to â€Å"jus sanguinis,† meaning â€Å"right of the blood,† the principle that a person’s citizenship is determined or acquired by the nationality of one or both parents. In the United States, citizenship can be acquired by either jus soli, or less commonly, by jus sanguinis.   Legal Basis of US Birthright Citizenship In the United States, the policy of birthright citizenship is based in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating â€Å"[a]ll 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.† Ratified in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to override the 1857 U.S. Supreme Court’s Dred Scott v. Sandford decision which had denied citizenship to former African American slaves. In the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that under the Fourteenth Amendment, full U.S. citizenship cannot be denied to any person born within the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of the parents at the time. Under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, birthright citizenship is similarly granted to any person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, U.S. jus soli birthright citizenship, as established by the Fourteenth Amendment, is automatically granted to any person born within any of the 50 states and the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition, jus sanguinis birthright citizenship is granted (with some exceptions) to persons born to U.S. citizens while in other countries.   The above statutes and subsequent legislative amendments are compiled and codified into the United States Code of Federal Laws at 8 U.S.C.  § 1401 to define who becomes a United States citizen at birth. According to federal law, the following persons shall be deemed U.S. citizens at birth: A person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.A person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.A person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person.A person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States. The Birthright Citizenship Debate While the legal concept of birthright citizenship has withstood years of challenges in the courts of law, its policy of automatically granting U.S. citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants has not fared as well in the court of public opinion. For example, a 2015 Pew Research Center survey found that 53% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 42% of Americans overall favor changing the Constitution to bar citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrant parents. Many opponents of birthright citizenship argue that it encourages expectant parents to come to the U.S. simply to give birth in order to improve their own chances of attaining legal resident (green card) status- a practice often called â€Å"birth tourism.† According to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of Census Bureau data, an estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were born to â€Å"unauthorized immigrants.† The Pew study further estimates that a total of about four million American-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents lived in the U.S. in 2009, along with about 1.1 million foreign-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents. Controversially calling it the â€Å"anchor baby† situation, some lawmakers have suggested legislation to change how and when birthright citizenship is granted. The 2015 Pew analysis found that birthright citizenship was granted to about 275,000 babies born to undocumented immigrant parents in 2014, or about 7% of all births in the U.S. that year. That number represents a drop from the peak year of illegal immigration in 2006 when about 370,000 children- about 9% of all births- were born to undocumented immigrants. In addition, about 90% of undocumented immigrants who give birth in the U.S. have resided in the country for more than two years before giving birth. On October 30, 2018, President Donald Trump escalated the debate by stating that he intended to issue an executive order completely removing the right of citizenship to people born in the U.S. to foreign nationals under any circumstances- an act some argue would essentially repeal the Fourteenth Amendment. The president set no timeline for his proposed order, so birthright citizenship- as established by the Fourteenth Amendment and United States v. Wong Kim Ark- remains the law of the land. Other Countries With Birthright Citizenship According to the independent, non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies, the United States along with Canada and 37 other countries, most of which are in the Western Hemisphere, offer largely unrestricted jus soli birthright citizenship. No Western Europe countries offer unrestricted birthright citizenship to all children born within their borders. Over the last decade, many countries, including France, New Zealand, and Australia, have abandoned birthright citizenship. In 2005, Ireland became the last country in the European Union to abolish birthright citizenship. Sources and Further Reference Arthur, Andrew R. (November 5, 2018). Birthright Citizenship: An Overview. Center for Immigration Studies.Smith, Rogers M. (2009). Birthright Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and 2008. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law.Lee, Margaret (May 12, 2006). U.S. Citizenship of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents. Congressional Research Service.Da Silva, Chantal. (October 30, 2018). Trump Says He Plans to Sign Executive Order to Terminate Birthright Citizenship. CNN.

All About Glosses, or Brief Definitions

All About Glosses, or Brief Definitions All About Glosses, or Brief Definitions All About Glosses, or Brief Definitions By Mark Nichol One of my pet peeves as an editor (and editors are notoriously peevish, and we only become more so with experience) is the presentation of glosses. A gloss, in language, is a brief definition or explanation of an unfamiliar term or concept. (The previous sentence includes a gloss of the word gloss, though a fairly long one; they often consist of a single word, or several at most.) Two of the more familiar definitions of gloss as a noun can be described as â€Å"a concealment of truth† (virtually antonymic to the meaning under discussion here) and â€Å"an act of putting a positive spin on something,† which is related to the connotation of deceit; the sense of gloss as â€Å"explanation,† however, is more akin to the idea of providing a sheen with a clear view to what’s underneath, as in â€Å"lip gloss† or â€Å"high-gloss paint.† One problem with language glosses is that they invite the use of scare quotes, or gratuitous quotation marks that frame a word or phrase to provide emphasis. (That last phrase is a gloss of â€Å"scare quotes.† Also, understand that the quotes here, in turn, are not scare quotes but, rather, valid markers of a phrase I want to call out for attention, like a word italicized to emphasize that the word itself, not the thing, is under discussion.) Note the unnecessary use of scare quotes in the following sentence (formatted as single quotation marks because the sample sentence is framed in double quotes): â€Å"The trend of cross-border reproductive care, or ‘medical tourism,’ is popular in Europe.† But there’s another, equally egregious issue: The gloss precedes the term. In addition to omitting the scare quotes, introduce the term, then gloss it, not the other way around: â€Å"The trend of medical tourism, or cross-border reproductive care, is popular in Europe.† Scare quotes are extraneous when introducing slang, too. Look at this sentence: â€Å"I realized she was speaking Singaporean English, or ‘Singlish.’† The scare quotes are condescending, as if the writer is holding the reader’s hand, patting it, and saying, â€Å"There, there, dear. I’ll protect you from any scary words you haven’t seen before. See? There’s one up ahead right now.† And, again, why explain the term before the reader reads it? Let the reader dance on the precipice of danger for an instant: â€Å"I realized she was speaking Singlish, or Singaporean English.† Worse yet when glosses are concerned is the absence of appositive punctuation, as here: â€Å"They built the domed snow houses or igloos most people associate with Eskimos.† Never mind that igloos is not exactly an exotic term, and that the definition precedes it; the lack of internal punctuation implies that the object is â€Å"domed snow houses or (domed) igloos.† In fact, the object is â€Å"domed snow houses,† followed by the appositive term igloos. (An appositive is a term equivalent in meaning to another one, as in â€Å"the writer Melville† or â€Å"the country of Morocco† or â€Å"the runner-up, Smith.† Note that common appositives are set off from proper ones with commas only if they’re restrictive, or can apply only to a specific corresponding noun. There there’s another gloss right there.) Notice that the first two examples in this post correctly set the gloss off from the defined term with a brace of commas. The correct form of the third example follows: â€Å"They built the igloos, or domed snow houses, most people associate with Eskimos.† The bottom line: Put a shine on your glosses by placing them after the defined term and framing them within commas (or parentheses or em dashes, if either seems more appropriate). Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Writing Basics category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:How to Format a US Business Letter11 Writing Exercises to Inspire You and Strengthen Your Writing10 Tips for Clean, Clear Writing