If you're referring to American Indians, that's because for a long time, they were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Since United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), though, there's no doubt that if you're born here and are subject to the US law, you're a citizen.

I think anyone would have a very hard time arguing to the courts now that anyone born within the territory of the United States, with the exception of children of diplomats and the possible exception of children of illegal immigrants, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Regardless though, Congress simply doesn't have the power to add any other requirement for citizenship for those who meet the criteria of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is what Psi U MC Vito was suggesting.

To try and put it another way, there are 2 ways that one can become a US citizen:

1. By being born here and being subject to US jurisdiction. Most of us became citizens in this way. But the child of a diplomat would not because, even if he was born here, he would not be subject to US jurisdiction. If you meet both requirents (born here, subject to jurisdiction), you are a US citizen. Congress cannot impose any other requirement, like passing a test, on you, because you meet the constitutional requirements.

2. Naturalization. Anyone who doesn't fall under method one, including that diplomat's kid, can seek to become a naturalized citizen. Congress makes the rules on naturalization and can change those rules whenever it sees fit to do so.

Where does it say that?

Ok....cool

Why not? We have national media for them to disseminate their ideas. We have many means of communication for people across the nation to unite to work for the candidate.

Just saw this. Yes I do believe English has no official standing because the United States of America doesn't have an official language. However I will acknowledge that English is the de facto national language of the United states and that I think it is a good idea for people to learn it. But forcing people to learn a language with no official standing just to become a citizen makes no sense to me.



Honestly, I think he is right about the existence of parties. However I do think they are formed more by politicians, especially on the Hill, then the people. Lets be perfectly honest, how many average joes support the whole platform of their party? But parties are a good way for individuals with similar goals in the legislative to get things done.

It's not just about communication, though. To get mundane about it, ballot management and vetting are issues.

The current system, at least in most states, is that parties nominate candidates, which requires those candidates to undergo a primary or caucus system to guage the degree of support they have. Each recognized party then puts up its candidates, who presumably have already shown some degree of support in the electorate. Typically, this results in a manageable number of candidates on the ballot.

It's not just POTUS when we're talking about with parties -- it's senators, representatives, governors, state legislators, other state executive and judicial officials possibly, potentially all the way down to town council and school board. Do away with parties and what happens when you have 30+ people running for POTUS, plus 20 more for governor (there was the California recall ballot with 135 candidates, but that was the only office on the ballot), 13 for senator, 22 for representative . . . ? Both from the standpoint of a manageable ballot and from the standpoint of trying to keep straight the positions of all the scores of candidates, it has the real potential for an electoral nightmare.

Parties have their problems, to be sure, but doing away with them wouldn't solve anything.

Good job, Wikipedia.

I am ecstatic that English remains the dominant language and that I rarely encounter someone in America who does not speak it.

You could still have a primary, in which only the top 5 or 10 vote getters are placed on the national ballots. I don't see how that's any different than the party primaries where everyone and their brother is running.

I just honestly think it's gotten to the point where parties do more harm than good and are pushing good people away from politics.

Except that primaries are run by the states. Each state has different requirements for getting on the ballot, but as far as I know, each state allows major party nominees on the ballots without any other requirement (petition signatures or the like).

I really can't think of any democracy of any size that doesn't has a party system.

Which (the bolded) is really unfair. The Reps or Dems can basically run a flounder for President if they want to, but someone who's far more qualified has to run around begging for signatures? Totally bogus.

In most states, it's more than the two major parties -- there are Libertarians, Greens, Reform, whoever else. Beyond that, the signature requirements are raraly too onerous for a half-way credible candidate. And like I said, if you don't have some kind of system like this, there is a real risk of ballot and electoral nightmares.

You have to remember too that in many states, independent voters or maybe even anyone can vote in a party's primary, not just registered members of the party. Some states don't even have voter registration by parties.

To me the real question is not whether the party system is a good or bad thing in and of itself. To me the questions are why, for almost all of our history, has the US had what is essentially a two-party system (and I know that the fact that we don't have proportional representation is part of the reason) and why have the same two parties dominated basically since the Civil War?