Dual Citizenship?
Answer:
Contact the US consulate in Halifax - Purdy's Wharf building or go on-line to the US dept. of Immigration and Naturalization
united states immigration. www.us-immigration.com
get your Birth certificate and go to the nearest US embassy
Neither of your parents were living in the States when you were born, so you are a Canadian citizen only...if you want an American citizenship you have to apply through immigration.
Contact your nearest immigration office.
you are automatically a citizen. contact the department of vital statistics where you were born (the city in california) and get your birth certificate.
Then apply for an american passport. it should be that simple.
I would speak with an immigration attorney. There are so many scams with immigration, you want to be VERY careful about doing it the right way.
There happens to be an immigration attorney I did work for years ago that is in Florida. I think Miami. The company name is Immigration Law Group, LLC.
Tel: (001) 305.571.5017
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. - XIV Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The United States will consider you to be a U.S. citizen by virtue of your birth in the United States. Canada will consider you a Canadian citizen because you were born to two Canadians.
You will need a U.S. passport to establish the fact at the border. If you cross by car an official birth certificate (certified copy from the county clerk or state department of vital statistics) will suffice until January 1, 2008.
Read the information at the link cited below for more info on obtaining an official birth certificate from California. You could also google birth certificates by the county where you were born.
Legal and naturalized citizens children are U.S. citizens. However illegal and non-citizens children are not. What makes you think it was ever a law? Just because it has always been a fable... fairy tale... wishful thinking... rumors spread never made it a law or the law of the U.S..
You're thinking of English Common Law - which was thrown out when Americans won the battle of the Revolutionary War. The forefathers put together a Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights declarations of their own referring to Natural Law, and National Law for U.S. citizens or those Naturalized as citizens. The 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
"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 virtue 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, or who belong to the families of ambassadors 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. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Howard did not say virtue of "common law," but virtue of "natural law." Natural law at the time considered all children born, no matter where, inherited the condition of their father. A German child born to a German father in the United States would be under natural law a German citizen because that is the condition of the father. And that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
When one is said to be subject to some nations jurisdiction, this means they are considered as a citizen of that nation. When an alien visits or sneaks into this country they are only under the jurisdiction of local laws and ordinances, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they are not subjects of the nation in owing the country any allegiance.
The only recognized means for non-Americans to come under US jurisdiction for purposes of citizenship under the US Constitution is through the process of naturalization, which among other things requires an oath of allegiance to the United States. Sen. Reverdy Johnson said as much when debating the citizenship clause in the Senate: "And I know no mode by which an alien can become a citizen of the United States except under the naturalization laws of the United States."
Sen. Howard left no doubt what the clause meant in 1868: "The Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country."
America's common law rule as found highlighted in George Paschal's highly influential Annotated Constitution, note 274: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together."
Paschal further adds: "To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power." In other words, Congress cannot use the power of establishing rules of naturalization to grant citizenship to domestic children born to aliens.
By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself, came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.
Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US that would in return instantly nullify their recent enacted civil rights law? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean...and for which national law was based upon.
Q: When did the United States Adopt Jus Solis?
Answer: United States never did adopt it as it was practiced under common law, and instead, abandoned common law practice of jus solis.
After the Revolutionary War the first thing the colonies threw out was England’s much hated “perpetual allegiance.” To the colonists, perpetual allegiance was much like perpetual bondage (no citizen or subject could renounce their allegiance, i.e., expatriate), and was considered both a dirty phrase and offensive. To say America freely adopted common law rule of jus soli would be like suggesting America adopted Nazism after WWII.
Under jus soli, there was no personal choice. Under old English common law, foreigners were not required to owe any allegiance to the nation in advance because the mere act of birth upon British soil conferred allegiance itself, no matter to who. Under common law, dual allegiance could easily be forced upon a child, something Americans greatly despised and guarded against.
Founder Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the “consent” of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”
Theodore Roosevelt called dual allegiance a “self-evident absurdity.” Adams said a “man who confesses to several allegiances is not a man anyone could completely trust.” There was to be no dual allegiance in the United States, and the framers went to pains to make sure such absurdity could never exist under American law.
After the current Constitution was adopted, America devised its own rules governing citizenship that resembled nothing like jus soli under common law. Instead of forcing allegiance upon a person by virtue of birth, it was required that the father consent in advance and renounce all allegiance he owed to his country of birth.
Under American law it was required for foreigners three years before admission to first record their intent to become citizens with a local court. Furthermore, foreigners were required to take a oath that it is their intention to become a citizen of the United States, and that they renounce forever any allegiance and fidelity to another country. Upon this, children born to him/her would be considered born within the allegiance of the United States, and thus, a citizen of the United States even though the father had not yet been awarded citizenship.
Please note: There were two oaths required of a foreigner, one at the time of their declaration of intent to become citizens of the United States, and an oath at the time citizenship was awarded.
States before and after the the federal Constitution was adopted determined who shall be born citizens within their respective limits, while Congress was responsible for defining rights of alien citizenship. All State laws which records survived required an oath of allegiance along with a record of intent to reside within the State. Without this, most statutes deemed infants born to aliens to be aliens and not citizens of the State.
Under common law, none of the above was required, and so, proves without a doubt the United States never adopted common law jus soli. This of course, did not prevent the courts from rendering confusing court decisions on the subject.
The 39th Congress adopted the same allegiance in advance requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment: “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.”
What did “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? It was defined by Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary: “Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
The primary author of the Fourteenths citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard, said “subject to the jurisdiction” means “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
It is very interesting to note that Howard proclaimed the citizenship clause as a virtue of "natural law." Natural law at the time considered all children born, no matter where, to had inherited the condition of their father. A German child born to a German father in the United States would be under natural law a German citizen because that is the condition of the father.
Because a foreigner was required to renounce all allegiance to another country in advance of becoming a citizen, and declare their allegiance to the United States instead, a child would inherit his/her fathers allegiance to the United States, and under the Fourteenth Amendment, an American citizen.
The construction applied to the citizenship clause by its framers dramatically departs from the rule of jus soli, and thus, differs in operation. Under Howard’s construction the clause could had well read: “All persons born to citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States.”
Next time someone says America adopted the unconditional rule of jus soli, or adopted England’s common law of birthright, laugh at ‘em. Finally, I will finish with some words of wisdom from TR.
From the melting pot of life in this free land all men and woman of all nations who come hither emerge as Americans and nothing else. They must have renounced completely and without reserve all allegiance to the land from which they or their forefathers came. And it is a binding duty on every citizen of this country in every important crisis to act solidly with all his fellow Americans, having regard only to the honor and interest of America, treating every other nation purely on its conduct in that crisis, without reference to his ancestral predilections or antipathies. If he does not act, he is false to the teachings and lives of Washington and Lincoln; he is not entitled to any part or lot in our country and he should be sent out of it. (Theodore Roosevelt, "The Children of the Crucible" New York, Sept. 9, 1917)
So it is not the U.S. who changed the laws at all. But people such as you who have been listening to fables of misinformation based on others trying to spread untruths of the laws having been changed to Americanize illegals, and non-citizens babies with automatic citizenship for being born on U.S. soil.
The medicine information post by website user , MyTend.com not guarantee correctness.