With support foreign-born child of #americansabroad can BECOME a US citizen http://t.co/Iso5KiE289 – Interesting article not IS but BECOME
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) July 8, 2013
Interesting perspective on a topic of great interest.
With support foreign-born child of #americansabroad can BECOME a US citizen http://t.co/Iso5KiE289 – Interesting article not IS but BECOME
— U.S. Citizen Abroad (@USCitizenAbroad) July 8, 2013
Interesting perspective on a topic of great interest.
I have always understood, and very clearly, that a foreign-born child of a parent with US citizenship is NOT a US citizen but that the parent can apply for US citizenship for the child before his/her 18th birthday. Also, it seemed that this was more or less a formality and citizenship would normally be granted. I can’t quote policy or regulations as it has been a few years but I once researched it, thinking our two daughters could have US citizenship; however, they were nearly 30 at the time. In hindsight, good damn thing!
I’ve always been puzzled why people look at me like I have two heads when I mention this so I essentially gave up correcting people when they talk about foreign-born offspring “automatically” being US citizens.
I did a search and came up with this article on the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. Everything is explained clearly. http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1312.html
@Bruce
Yes, note this part of the page you are linking to:
What Is the Effective Date of the Child Citizenship Act?
The effective date of the Child Citizenship Act is February 27, 2001. Children who met these requirements on that date automatically became American citizens. Children who were 18 years of age or older on that date did not acquire American citizenship from the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.
This is all in S. 320 of the INA and is very helpful information.
Thank you very much, Bruce Newman!!!! You have found what no one else in the US has been able to provide to me / us.
It seems to me that the left hand of the US does not know what the right hand of the US is doing. Too, too, too complex — and it’s up to us to find it all. We get no proper help from the US.
I have just sent the following to my US tax lawyer and the US immigration / nationality lawyer that I engaged regarding my son’s US status:
According to the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, my sons and daughter do not have US citizenship though they are eligible; their eligibility coming from the spouse.
The child must meet the following requirements:
Have at least one American citizen parent by birth or naturalization;
Be under 18 years of age;
Live in the legal and physical custody of the American citizen parent; and
Be admitted as an immigrant for lawful permanent residence.
The last makes it a situation where my sons and daughter can escape “citizenship” if they do not end up being “admitted as an immigrant for lawful permanent residence”. That makes it absolutely clear. Have absolutely nothing to do with the United States and you escape being forced to become a part of “Tax-Nation”.
I don’t want to crush your hopes, but I think you are mixing things up. The Child Citizenship Act applies to people who did not acquire US citizenship at birth. For example, if only one parent is a US citizen and has not been in the US since age 14, the child born abroad is not a US citizen at birth. The Child Citizenship Act didn’t change that, but it provides two easier ways for them to become naturalized US citizens: the US parent may petition for a green card for the child, and upon receiving it, the child becomes a US citizen (this process requires that they physically come to the US); or the parent may ask for US citizenship for the child if the grandparents satisfied the US residence requirement (this process doesn’t require that they come to the US). But in both cases, the child becomes a US citizen at that point, not retroactively since birth. It’s an alternative naturalization procedure, at the request of the parent. From what I understand, these people cannot become president or vice president of the US.
However, if the parent already satisfies the requirements to transmit US citizenship, the child is a US citizen at birth. I don’t think there is any way around that.
Current US law states that the following people are US citizens at birth:
1. Anyone born in the US, except children of foreigners with diplomatic immunity (this applies to all US states, DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands; those born in American Samoa are US nationals but not US citizens);
2. Children born outside the US with two US parents, if one of the parents had ever resided in the US (no minimum residence period required);
3. Children born outside the US with only one US parent, if the parents were married, and the US parent had been physically in the US for 5 years and at least 2 years after age 14;
4. Children born outside the US with a US father and a foreign mother, if the parents were not married, and the father had been physically in the US for 5 years and at least 2 years after age 14, and legitimates or acknowledges paternity of the child and agrees to provide financial support before the child turns 18;
5. Children born outside the US with a US mother and a foreign father, if the parents were not married, and the mother had been physically in the US for 1 year.
In the past, the laws were slightly different, with longer periods of US residence or physical presence required. The US constitution only guarantees case 1 above (and only for US states and DC, not the territories), but that doesn’t mean that Congress can’t define who is a US citizen under the other cases, it just means that it can’t change case 1 without a constitutional amendment. I don’t see any legal difference between US citizens at birth born inside or outside the US.
The gender disparity between cases 4 and 5 was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. In case 4, the father has to do things to transmit US citizenship to the child, but the law is explicit that once he does these things, the child is a US citizenship at birth, so it’s retroactive. In the cases under the Child Citizenship Act, it’s not retroactive.
In summary:
In cases 1, 2, 3 and 5, transmission of US citizenship is automatic at birth.
In case 4, transmission of US citizenship is not automatic but it’s retroactive to birth.
In cases under the Child Citizenship Act, like all naturalizations, transmission of US citizenship is not automatic or retroactive, it starts at that point.
Isn’t Bruce referring to ‘derivative citizenship’, not the same as ‘by descent’?
http://www.us-immigrationvisa.com/citizenship/derivative-citizenship
I see. Not back to square one for me — I’m going with the USCitizenAbroad analysis which is much after Square One.
Or perhaps I don’t see. It’s sort of like the faster I read, the behinder I get.
Does this not say foreign-born biological AND foreign-born adopted children of American citizens? Then, For the biological child of the American citizen this will be a certified copy of the foreign birth certificate (and translation if not in English). The only birth certificate for my son is a Canadian birth certificate. He was not registered as a US Birth Abroad so he does not have a US birth certificate.
Does the above mean a child who was registered as a US Birth Abroad?
WHO DO NOT OR WHO DID NOT? Who then are these children of American citizens who are born and reside abroad who DO NOT become American citizens by birth? The child lives abroad in the legal and physical custody of the American citizen parent and has been lawfully admitted into the United States as a nonimmigrant. Who born abroad who lives in the legal and physical custody of the American citizen parent is lawfully admitted into the United States as a nonimmigrant — if I moved to the US with my son, would he meet this description? What other child meets this description?
OR
Because of my “qualifications,” my son DID acquire US citizenship from the moment he was born — descent. In which case, we’re back to entrapment.
Derivative vs acquired citizenship for kids (sorry don’t mean to be patronizing, I just appreciate the simple explanation):
http://www.congressforkids.net/citizenship_1_whatdoesittake.htm
Correction: Both processes under the Child Citizenship Act require that the child physically come to the US. The difference is that in the first process the child must formally immigrate to the US as a permanent resident (green card), while in the second process the child can just come as a visitor.
This seems like just another avenue for people withpossible claims to citizenship to make those claims without going through the formal immigration proceeds, which are long, tedious and expensive. Probably to help adoptive parents and USC’s who are born aboard and can emigrate to the US themselves but have children who they couldn’t pass on citizenship to by birth.
I don’t think this settles the question of whether or not a person born aboard to a USC, who meets the criteria for citizenship transmission (and again, this just has icky disease connotations), have to make a formal claim in order to be considered fair game for the IRS.
I still think that for the non-registered adult with a USC parent that the best option is forcing the USG to prove their claim. Even if a bank situation, this person – with a non-US birthplace and a passport of their country in hand – doesn’t have to prove squat to anyone. A bank employee has no way of knowing whether this person’s parent met the transmission criteria unless the potential client volunteers that info and even so, once he/she is over 18 only that person can make the claim to the consulate to claim citizenship. Unless, of course, the USG wants to start mailing citizenship papers and passport apps to everyone they suspect is “one of their own”. That being kinda doubtful.
YogaGirl wrote: “I don’t think this settles the question of whether or not a person born aboard to a USC, who meets the criteria for citizenship transmission (and again, this just has icky disease connotations), have to make a formal claim in order to be considered fair game for the IRS.”
As the quoted statute (which should be read in conjunction with the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, the Organic laws of various outlying territories and the Common Law relating to Allegiance (since that, rather than Civil-Law “nationality” is what the Founders had in mind) states, one is either a citizen at birth or not. Or one may acquire citizenship through an act (declaration of paternity, for example; moving to the United States, and so on). The most common cause of doubt in citizenship matters is proof of facts: a parent did or didn’t have a “residence” in the USA; the mother of a nonmarital child did or didn’t spend one uninterrupted year in the USA.
My own view is that the only issue ripe for Supreme Court analysis is the discrimination between marital and nonmarital (i.e. “legitimate” and “illegitimate”) children. But parents can conceal facts, which become less susceptible to easy proof as the years go by. And the IRS has no standing to assert US nationality on someone who has never availed himself of an attribute of US nationality. (See Rev. Rul. 75-357, PLR 8138071 relating to persons whose citizenship was restored by decisions of the Supreme Court by the Afroyim and Terrazas decisions.)
There is a rebuttable presumption of alienage in the case of a person, said to be a US citizen, whose birth was never registered with a consular office: Rios v. Civiletti, 571 F. Supp. 218 (D.P.R. 1983) (father, U.S. Army deserter, recorded birth in Mexico using fictitious name); Corona-Palomera v. INS, 661 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir.1981); Matter of Leyva, 16 I. & N. Dec. 118, 119 (BIA 1977). Note that applications to register a birth must be sent to the State Department for determination if the person whose birth is to be registered is older than 5 years.
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society