Opening 1: Questions
If a citizen joins Al Qaeda, can their citizenship be revoked?
A natural born citizen cannot have their citizenship removed as a form of punishment. In Trop v. Dulles (1958), the Supreme Court ruled that the removal of citizenship is too strict a punishment for any crime. However, a natural born citizen can have their citizenship renounced through joining a group contrary to United States interest, which includes Al Qaeda or groups like the Nazi party. They can also give up citizenship by becoming a naturalized citizen of another country, serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the US, working for foriegn governments that requires naturalization or swearing an oath to that country, formal renouncing, or being convicted of the crime of treason. This is seen as giving up citizenship voluntarily (formally renouncing), in contrast, a naturalized citizen can also lose citizenship through fraud or illegality in its procurement. Giving up a citizenship is a right; someone who gives up citizenship cannot get it back
Should the United States allow dual national citizenship or does it undermine American citizenship? Explain your response.
Against: -damage the value, responsibility, and loyalty of citizenship -goes against naturalization oath of allegiance -weakens national unity For: -facilitates commerce -can help people fleeing from bad situations
Citizenship Clause
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.
How do the rights and responsibilities of citizens differ from those of residential aliens?
Both citizens and resident aliens must obey laws and pay taxes. Citizens specifically, however, are able to vote for office, gain a US passport, and run for office whereas resident aliens cannot. They also must cast informed ballots in elections and serve on juries.
What will removing DACA mean to those 800,000 that are here through the program?
Each decade, DACA recipients add over 460 billion to the economy, meaning a negative impact on the economy could occur on a national scale. On the other hand, figures have shown that only 49% of DACA beneficiaries have attained high school education and around a quarter of them are illiterate in English- DACA recipients would lose both protection from deportation and the authorization to work, harming their lives and families in the US DACA recipients would no longer be eligible for paying in state tuition at institutions for higher education, making education much more challenging Many of those that were under DACA now have children in the US that are legal citizens, so Trump's proposal and actions in the situation can impact families possibly. In fact, there are 200,000 children to DACA recipients in the United States according to the Atlantic. President Trump is looking for an exchange: taking away DACA in exchange for more money towards border security and possibly changing the visa lottery... - instead of simply addressing the given problem
How was citizenship defined in the United States before and after the 14th Amendment?
Immediately after the revolution, Americans were considered citizens of their state because each state was an independent, sovereign political community. When American's talked about "their country," they usually meant their state. The Constitution served to further unite Americans under the union, but founders could not agree on a definition of national citizenship. Under the original constitution the qualification for national citizenship depended on the states' definitions.
Should all Americans be required to demonstrate their knowledge of American government and history as naturalized citizens must do in order to become citizens? Explain.
Individuals should not be required to demonstrate their knowledge of American government and history to obtain citizenship. This requirement would remove any benefit from being born in the United States and establish all naturally born residents of the US as equal to immigrants needing naturalization.
Explain how jus soli, jus sanguinis, and residency differ as principles for defining citizenship.
Jus soli refers to the idea that any child born in a state is a citizen of that state, even if the child's parents are not citizens. Jus sanguinis refers to the idea that citizenship is determined by a child's parents rather than their birthplace. Residency does not define American citizenship, and one could live permanently in the United States without ever obtaining citizenship.
Could Trump actually remove/alter birthright citizenship with an executive order or other executive action? Why or why not?
NO An executive order cannot narrow the rights provided in an amendment. Article 2 of the Constitution establishes that the executive can carry out laws, but cannot create or remove laws/change the rights given by an amendment and therefore President Trump could not change the law regarding birthright citizenship. In fact, Congress has tried to limit birthright citizenship simply by passing an act (The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017), however, this act did not pass and clearly an amendment would be needed to change a past amendment, especially given the Supreme Court having set precedent on this issue in Wong Kim Ark v. US (1898).
Should people legally residing in the United States have the right to vote? Why or why not?
Resident aliens should not have the right to vote. Alien voting makes citizens and aliens almost indistinguishable, and damages the value of the social contract between the citizens and the state. If aliens wish to vote, then becoming American citizens allows them to do so.
Jus Sanguinis
The law of blood, which determines citizenship based on one's parents' citizenship.
How does the constitution define national and state citizenship?
The original Constitution left the definition and qualification for national citizenship up to the states' definition. The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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."
How is citizenship through naturalization different than citizenship by birth?
While birthright citizenship simply involves being born in the US, the naturalization process involves a number of criteria which qualify individuals for citizenship. Those wanted to be naturalized must be: - at least 18 years old - lawfully admitted to the US for permanent residence - continuous residents of the US for at least five years - of good moral character - committed to the principles of the constitution - able to read, write, speak and understand English - willing to take an oath of allegiance to the US
Should the Fourteenth Amendment be changed to reflect additional or different criteria for national citizenship? Explain.
While the Fourteenth Amendment has led to a small number of abuses and incentive for undocumented immigrants to have children born in American hospitals, our nation has historically prospered by attracting immigrants from all parts of the world, an important aspect of that attraction being the promise of a better life for their children as American citizens.
Should the english and civics tests in the naturalization process be changed or removed?
no, the english and civics test in naturalization should not be changed. Regarding the civics test, an NBC study found that out of 1,000 natural born Americans, only ⅓ of them could pass the naturalization test. Where this statistic is often used as an argument against the test, the real problem is with natural born Americans. Holding everyone to a basis of civic knowledge is very important and that bar should not be lowered. While many American schools have civics as a graduation requirement, Harvard Political Review reports that only 24% of 12th graders could pass a national civics test (2010). Civics and government is not a big enough focus in American educational systems when it is a pressing issue, so rather than lowering the standards or difficulty of the civics test in the naturalization process, more attention needs to be brought to teaching natural born children our government. Furthermore, the english test in the naturalization process should not be removed. Showing a fundamental understanding of english- how to speak, read, and write it- is crucial to living in a country where the vast majority of the population speaks english, and everyday life is surrounded by this single language.
Jus soli
the law of soil, which determines citizenship based on where a person is born
What is the context and meaning of the term subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th Amendment citizenship clause? Different interpretations?
there are many theories/interpretations including... The term subject to the jurisdiction thereof was originally only meant to exclude the children of foreign diplomats, who owe allegiance to another nation, from being born as citizens The term subject to the jurisdiction thereof means anyone who is both born in the US and the children of two citizens of another country is not completely subject to US jurisdiction exclusively and is therefore excluded by the citizenship clause. Anyone in the US on account of an illegal act is not subject fully to the jurisdiction of the US government and therefore is excluded by the citizenship clause.
