Birth Abroad

Post Reply
User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12312
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Birth Abroad

#1

Post by Whatever4 » Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:16 pm

Question -- the law in effect from December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986, which we've all seen:





Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock





A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.I have trouble believing one intent was to punish young parents. I mean, pregnant 18 year-old Seattle native pops over to Vancouver to shop at the mall, and pops out a non-citizen? Is there some sort of an equal protection claim here? Congress couldn't have deliberately meant the lower end doesn't count?


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

Lola_Getz
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:40 am

Birth Abroad

#2

Post by Lola_Getz » Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:31 pm

Question -- the law in effect from December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986, which we've all seen: I have trouble believing one intent was to punish young parents.This "five years after the age of 14" thing only applies to Americans who live abroad at the time their children are born.After my older son was born in the UK in 1991, I called the Embassy to let them know and find out if he had American citizenship (he does). The first question I was asked by the State Department official I spoke to was "how long did you live in the US after your 14th birthday?" It's not an issue for Americans who have never lived abroad.The reason this rule is in effect is to prevent American citizens who were born out of the country, and who have either never lived in the States or who only lived there as children and never went back to live after that, from passing on their American citizenship to their own foreign-born children.For example, I was born and raised in the United States and then emigrated to the UK as a young woman. My sons have dual British-American citizenship but neither of them has ever lived in the States. If they decide never to go live in the USA they'll still always retain their own American citizenship, but they then won't be able to pass on that citizenship to their own children when the time comes unless they go live in America for the minimum period required to allow them to do that.



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Birth Abroad

#3

Post by poutine » Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:45 pm

Question -- the law in effect from December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986, which we've all seen:





Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock





A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.I have trouble believing one intent was to punish young parents. I mean, pregnant 18 year-old Seattle native pops over to Vancouver to shop at the mall, and pops out a non-citizen? Is there some sort of an equal protection claim here? Congress couldn't have deliberately meant the lower end doesn't count?Congress has plenary power over immigration rules, i.e., it has the final say with no judicial interference. In the modern age, I suspect that a blatantly racist immigration policy like the anti-brown and anti-black ones we had in the first half of the 20th century could lead to the Supreme Court reversing itself and stating that there are some 14th amendment boundaries on what Congress can do. But short of that extreme, the courts aren't going to touch Congressional discretion over questions like who to admit, who to exclude, and who gets citizenship (except for birthright issues on US soil.) The will of Congress and the President prevails, period.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 27363
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Birth Abroad

#4

Post by bob » Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:58 pm

A related-ish issue presently is under consideration by SCOTUS in [/break1]slate.com/id/2274095/]Flores-Villar.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Welsh Dragon
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm

Birth Abroad

#5

Post by Welsh Dragon » Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:10 pm

A related-ish issue presently is under consideration by SCOTUS in [/break1]slate.com/id/2274095/]Flores-Villar.Which they are taking their own sweet time ruling on!



poutine
Posts: 2925
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:30 pm

Birth Abroad

#6

Post by poutine » Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:27 pm

A related-ish issue presently is under consideration by SCOTUS in [/break1]slate.com/id/2274095/]Flores-Villar.Which they are taking their own sweet time ruling on!Oral argument transcript [link]here (PDF),http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argume ... 9-5801.pdf[/link] (if you want to see how competent lawyers argue cases in the US, as opposed to Orly et al.)



User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12312
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Birth Abroad

#7

Post by Whatever4 » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:13 pm

Question -- the law in effect from December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986, which we've all seen: I have trouble believing one intent was to punish young parents.This "five years after the age of 14" thing only applies to Americans who live abroad at the time their children are born.After my older son was born in the UK in 1991, I called the Embassy to let them know and find out if he had American citizenship (he does). The first question I was asked by the State Department official I spoke to was "how long did you live in the US after your 14th birthday?" It's not an issue for Americans who have never lived abroad.I'm gonna need a link for that, then, because it isn't obvious to me or my section of the Home page Project... :-k


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Birth Abroad

#8

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:11 pm

Congress has plenary power over immigration rules, i.e., it has the final say with no judicial interference. In the modern age, I suspect that a blatantly racist immigration policy like the anti-brown and anti-black ones we had in the first half of the 20th century could lead to the Supreme Court reversing itself and stating that there are some 14th amendment boundaries on what Congress can do. But short of that extreme, the courts aren't going to touch Congressional discretion over questions like who to admit, who to exclude, and who gets citizenship (except for birthright issues on US soil.) The will of Congress and the President prevails, period.The most reprehensible of these were the anti-Chinese policies which prevailed for nearly a century and spawned such decisions as Wong Kim Ark. The pushback was pretty hard, and basically resulted from the fact that the 14th Amendment was so clearly broad in scope that Congressional efforts to eviscerate the Amendment could not stand if Constitutional rule stood.





I think, considering that even late 19th and early 20th Century decisions strongly disfavored the nativist view, that even the current Supreme Court would push back hard at any attempts by Congress to amend the Constitution by the method of mindless rage which the RWNJs seem to think they can use to bypass Article V.



Lola_Getz
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:40 am

Birth Abroad

#9

Post by Lola_Getz » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:23 am

I'm gonna need a link for that, then, because it isn't obvious to me or my section of the Home page Project... :-kOff the top of my head, try the [link]United States nationality law,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ted_States[/link] entry on Wikipedia.





The section of the law as it pertains to me and my sons, which is section 2.2.2, reads as follows:





"Birth abroad to one United States citizen


A person born on or after November 14, 1986, is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (different rules apply if child was born out-of-wedlock):[7]


The person's parents were married at time of birth


One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born


The citizen parent lived at least five years in the United States before the child's birth


A minimum of two of these five years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.


INA 301(g) makes additional provisions to satisfy the physical-presence requirements for periods citizens spent abroad in “honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization”. Additionally citizens who spent time living abroad as the “dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person” in any of the previously mentioned organizations can also be counted.


A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of citizenship. Such a person may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have a record of citizenship. Such documentation is often useful to prove citizenship in lieu of the availability of an American birth certificate.


Different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before November 14, 1986. United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law is applicable as it existed at the time of the individual's birth.


For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[7]:*


The person's parents were married at the time of birth


One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born


The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth;


A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.


For persons born out-of-wedlock (mother) if all the following apply:


the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and


the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.[8] (See link for those born to a U.S. father out-of-wedlock)"





*This part of the law pertaining to children born abroad to one American parent would have applied to President Obama if he had been born outside the United States, which of course he wasn't. It's where I believe the birthers get their "5 years residence in the US after the mother's 14th birthday" argument, overlooking the fact that these conditions are set out in the section of the law pertaining to births abroad, but Obama was born in the United States.





Common sense should tell people that for children born within the United States, no 5-years-past-14th-birthday exists. If it did, there would be millions of Americans born to teenage mothers who would not be natural born citizens, despite being born on American soil. I would be one of them, and so would my daughter.



User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12312
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Birth Abroad

#10

Post by Whatever4 » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:36 am

Thanks Lola. I'm not sure how that applies to the teenager visiting the Canadian mall though. I'm still looking for the under 20-year old on vacation or short trip. Never lived abroad but gave birth abroad.


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

Lola_Getz
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:40 am

Birth Abroad

#11

Post by Lola_Getz » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:53 am

Thanks Lola. I'm not sure how that applies to the teenager visiting the Canadian mall though. I'm still looking for the under 20-year old on vacation or short trip. Never lived abroad but gave birth abroad.Yeah, I'm curious about that one too.One of my older son's university flatmates is a dual British-American national too, by virtue of the fact that his parents were briefly living in America for his father's job at the time he was born. That was enough to give him natural-born American citizenship, even though his family wasn't in the States for very long and neither of his parents was an American citizen. When they took him back to the UK as a baby, it was with an American passport and birth certificate.During the years I've lived in England, occasionally there will be a news story about a British tourist giving birth to a premature baby while vacationing in the USA. The point is always made that these children are automatically American citizens by virtue of being born on American soil.It's laughable that the birthers believe American citizenship can be easily snatched away from anyone who is entitled to it. If my experience is anything to go on, the reverse is true, right down to a State Department official telling me and my sons (at the time they got their first American passports at the embassy in London in early 2005) that in the eyes of the United States government, they were American citizens first and foremost even though they weren't born there. Yes, he used the term "birthright citizenship." It made a big impression on them. On me too. Also.Still doesn't answer the question about the teenager giving birth across the border in a Canadian mall though!
Edit: Wait, this part of section 2.2.2 about birth abroad to one parent would apply to an out-of-wedlock birth to that pregnant teen shopper, don't you think?:"For persons born out-of-wedlock (mother) if all the following apply:the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth andthe mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth."



User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12312
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Birth Abroad

#12

Post by Whatever4 » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:27 pm

Edit: Wait, this part of section 2.2.2 about birth abroad to one parent would apply to an out-of-wedlock birth to that pregnant teen shopper, don't you think?:"For persons born out-of-wedlock (mother) if all the following apply:the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth andthe mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth."
But she's Mormon, married early, and had to get a nice dress from Canada because the American ones were too immodest.


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

Lola_Getz
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:40 am

Birth Abroad

#13

Post by Lola_Getz » Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:29 am

But she's Mormon, married early, and had to get a nice dress from Canada because the American ones were too immodest.W4... :lol: :lol: Seriously, I don't know how that would be handled. Ordinarily, you'd think she'd fall under the same rules as any other American woman giving birth abroad, but if she was a teenager that "5 year after the age of 14" rule might kick in. It's a good reason for pregnant teenagers to stick close to home, or at least on the right side of the border, when they're close to their due date -- the nice Canadian dress can wait!I wonder if an exception would be made for a woman (or young girl) in that predicament if she was literally just popping over the border for an afternoon. I mean, it seems to me that the law was probably written with Americans who actually live abroad in mind, rather than those on a brief visit over a border. It's an interesting question.



Post Reply

Return to “Legal Claims by Birthers”