Talk:Citizenship of the United States

Reason for this article

I noticed there were articles about:

• citizenship in general

• • birthright citizenship in the US
  • US nationality law (focus on the rules)

But there wasn't an article about US citizenship in general (both birthright & naturalized types). So I created it with appropriate links to the other articles. There's a chance that readers will search for "Citizenship of the United States" so perhaps a redirect page is in order.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Update Dec 2009

I'll try to keep adding more information to this article as I learn more stuff. I'm reversing myself on some matters as I learn new things. I think more sources are needed, and multiple viewpoints, and it could use more pictures to make it more visually appealing. Not certain how to make it read "less like an essay" but I think just adding more info from different sources with differnt views will solve the problem.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a party pooper but the terms "American Citizen" and "US citizen" are not synonymous. US citizens possess dual citizenship in both America and the United States. American citizens are citizens of their state of the Union. Congress is fully aware of this fact even if the general population is not. See the current codification of 15 Stat 249. It is the expat act passed 3 weeks after the 14th was passed. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/22C23.txt.

This was a fact before the 14th amendment and it is a fact after the 14th amendment. A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective States. [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855).

It also confirms what a plain reading of the Constitution says. The Federal Government ( a foreign corporation) was granted the power: To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Nowhere are they given the power to actually "naturalize" anyone. They are merely commanded to make a "General Set of Rules" which a Union State must adhere to IF they decide to naturalize someone.

Title 8 (not enacted) still reflects this very thing. Section 1101 (21) gives us "The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state."

This is not the same as a "US National" defined at (22) " The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

The Secretary of State will politely and erroneously inform any American citizen requesting a certificate of non citizen nationality that only individuals from American Samoa can be "US Nationals". They pretend that "national" is not defined differently than " National of the United States" showing the 2 are not synonymous.

The truth is seen in the definition of "naturalization" at (23)) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of ""nationality of a state"" upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

“There are, then, under our "republican form of government", two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”. Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

No matter what propaganda the government may put out to push their "democracy" on us the facts remain. All the Civil Rights Acts are shams. The Declaration of Independence say "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights". This applies to White People, Black People, Yellow People. If Congress can "grant" you a "right" it is not a right at all. It is a granted privilege which may be revoked at a whim. Far to many people today actually believe that our "servant" the government has the power to grant its owners "privileges". Just ask Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. She has openly, on the record stated that she believes that you have NO RIGHTS except what the government "allows" you to have. You enter "voluntary servitude" without even knowing it. Today you are trained in school to believe it is normal. Peace and good luck. 98.206.222.240 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Costs of citizenship?

Shouldn't the costs of citizenship be mentioned after the benefits? Things like being taxed on your income while working abroad, not being able to visit certain countries and so on.

Well-written article by the way, very cogent. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Benefits of citizenship

I have quite a few friends who are naturalized citizens and reading this I feel one major benefit is missing - ability to travel to a number of countries without an entry visa. Also, legal residents who have to stay outside USA for more than 365 days may lose their green card but citizenship is unaffected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.72 (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship vs. Immigration

This article contains a number of inaccuracies in that it conflates "citizenship" with "immigration".

For instance, John McCain's proposal would not have allowed aliens to apply for citizenship, but rather for admission as legal immigrants (commonly known as Green Card). Applicants couldn't apply for citizenship until five years later.

I will try and correct these issues as I see them in the article.

Also, the concept of "anchor babies" requires some clarifications that I will add.