In a comment, bubblebustin asked for statistics on the number of Consular Reports of Birth Abroad. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to find the actual numbers, but the State Department does make Paperwork Reduction Act filings with the Office of Management & Budget giving estimates on DS-2029 (the form parents fill out to apply for a CRBA).
State started out with an estimate of 70,000 filers per year in 1975, but apparently they found this was an overestimate and quickly revised that downwards to 35,000 per year in 1980. In about two decades after that, State increased their estimate of DS-2029 filers by about 31% to 46,000 in 2002, then increased by about 50% more over the decade to 68,627 per year. In other words, it took more than three decades for the estimated number of reported births to double. Yet the doubling time for the total population of Americans abroad is far shorter than that, apparently around a decade: in 2002 State estimated that 3.2 million Americans lived abroad, while last year they said 6.3 million.
In other words, the proportion of overseas Americans requesting Consular Reports of Birth Abroad has decreased by nearly 25% in the last decade. The obvious question: is this due to a drop in birthrates, or a drop in the proportion who choose to report their babies’ births to the U.S. government?
The data
Aside from the actual numbers, you’ll notice that the State Department has been even worse than the IRS in keeping up-to-date with their OMB filings. We’ve previously discussed the State Department’s OMB filings on DS-4079 — which is filled out by people giving up U.S. citizenship — and concluded that their estimates are not compiled with much care. Their DS-2029 numbers seem a bit better, though not by much. Unlike the renunciation figures, there’s no reason for them to be low-balling their estimates: higher numbers make them look better, and they’re quite far away from the time & cost burden threshold where any changes to the form might be deemed a “significant regulatory action”.
However, apart from the fact that State didn’t even bother filling out the “cost burden to Federal government” field correctly until 2009, there’s a bigger problem: information collections are only approved for three-year periods, but in many cases there’s four and five-year gaps between State’s extension requests. This means that their expenditures to process these forms during several years were illegal. So far I am not aware of any evidence that State Department employees have been fined a fifth of their life’s savings for these minor paperwork lapses.
| Year | Estimated respondents | Respondent burden (hours) | Cost to Federal government |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1975 | 70,000 | 17,500 | $0 |
| 1980 | 35,000 | 8,750 | $0 |
| 1982 | 40,000 | 13,333 | $0 |
| 1985 | 40,000 | 13,333 | $0 |
| 1989 | 40,000 | 13,333 | $0 |
| 1992 | Filing missing | ||
| 1997 | 40,000 | 13,334 | $0 |
| 2001 | 46,000 | 15,333 | $0 |
| 2003 | 46,000 | 15,333 | $0 |
| 2005 | 46,000 | 15,333 | $0 |
| 2006 | 52,000 | 17,333 | $650 |
| 2007 | 52,000 | 17,333 | $650 |
| 2009 | 64,374 | 21,458 | $15,868,872 |
| 2012 | 68,627 | 22,876 | $8,893,511 |
Discussion
In 2002 there were an estimated 14.4 registered births for every thousand Americans abroad, and even as recently as 2008 (when State estimated that about four million resided abroad) there were 13 registered births per thousand Americans abroad. However, according to the 2012 figures there were only 10.9 registered births per thousand Americans abroad. And if the May 2013 Bureau of Consular Affairs Fact Sheet is correct in stating that there are 7.6 million Americans abroad, there might be as few as 9 registered births per thousand Americans abroad.
Back in the Homeland, the crude birth rate among U.S. residents — the number of births per thousand population — barely moved over the same period: it’s been about 14 for the entire decade. The conclusion I’d like to draw from this is that while most Americans abroad having babies in 2002 chose to register them, beginning around 2008 large proportions of parents began not to register their babies, reaching perhaps a quarter to a third of all new parents by 2012. Is this plausible? I personally think so.
The alternative theory — that the birth reporting rate is the same, and that the slow growth in CRBAs compared to the population of Americans abroad reflects a sharp decrease in the actual birth rate — does not seem so likely. This would require either that Americans abroad are having far fewer babies than Homelanders of the same age, or that the age structure of Americans abroad has shifted towards a higher proportion of people of non-child-bearing age. Hard data is sadly lacking on the latter point, but anecdotally, far more Americans who have gone abroad in the last decade are early-career young people, i.e. of child-bearing age and far more likely to end up in a relationship with a local person in their country of residence, as compared to earlier decades when Americans abroad were primarily retirees and married mid-to-late-career executives (with trailing spouses & children) on assignment.
With regards to the former point, there are far more countries today than in 1980 which can offer first-world wages & standard of living to their populations, and an even greater number of middle-income countries which used to be “hardship posts” but now have an acceptable level of educational & health infrastructure for those with the money to pay. This fact has two implications, both of which we’d expect to result in an increase rather than a decrease in the number of Americans having babies abroad. First, American couples temporarily resident abroad are today more likely to trust their local hospital rather than delaying pregnancy until their international assignment is over or flying the wife back to the U.S. during the first trimester. Second, bi-national couples at the beginning of their new lives together are more likely to choose to settle outside the U.S.; in particular, as the European Union has expanded and the provisions on freedom of movement for workers apply to an increasing number of countries, even Americans married to people from poorer countries of Europe may move, for example, to the United Kingdom.
A view from the Homeland
A New Jersey resident identified only as “Jean Public” submitted one comment on the most recent OMB filing during the 60-day period after it was announced in the Federal Register:
ds2029 must now require a picture of the claimed birth person and a fingerprint of
the claimed birth person.it is time to truly document who is being claimed as a us
citizen.
there is alot of lying and fakery and bribery in this entire process.since
citizenship is worth thousands of dollars, it is clear that workers in this area can
make money for themselves by
allowing people to pay them off for fake documents.we need investigation of the
alleged 68,000 births abroad. we want birth pictures of the claimed citizen to be
attached to the file, we want indication of the race and color fo the claimed new
citizen and we want fingerprints.
it is clear there is criminality in this area of our govt.
Nothing much to say about this, except that it reflects the typical Homelander view that U.S. citizens who inexplicably choose to live outside the Greatest Country on Earth are un-American criminals who would happily sell out the U.S. and help fraudsters get U.S. citizenship. On the other hand, in the unlikely event that this woman’s conspiracy theory is true, it would suggest that my above estimate of 25% of new parents choosing not to request CRBAs for their own children is too low, because the other 75% would include many fraudulent applications filed on behalf of non-citizens hoping for their children to get U.S. citizenship by posing as the children of U.S. citizens.
What happens if you don’t register your child?
If both parents of a baby born abroad are U.S. citizens, or one parent is a U.S. citizen who fulfills the five-year residence requirement, then in theory the baby is automatically a U.S. citizen at birth under 8 USC § 1401. In practise, there are obvious barriers to the U.S. government’s ability to identify such children if they have another citizenship and do not wish to be identified, to the extent that dual citizenship is demonised as a “loophole” in FATCA.
Naturally, it is more difficult for a child born abroad to remain an “undocumented American” if both parents are U.S. citizens — a U.S. border guard who sees two parents presenting U.S. passports but their two children presenting non-U.S. passports will probably get suspicious. Similarly, it’s hard for citizens of non-Visa Waiver Program countries: visa application forms ask for biographical details on the applicants’ parents. Even if a determination is made that the children are non-citizens (for example because the American parent did not reside in the U.S. for long enough), the consular officer may well deny them tourist visas to go visit Grandma on grounds of alleged “immigrant intent” and force them to get green cards instead as the only way to get around this de facto travel ban — which also has the effect of turning them into U.S. persons for tax purposes.
Just a couple of months ago calgary411 pointed us to some very interesting comments from attorney Stephen Flott of U.S. tax and citizenship law firm Flott & Co. on this very topic:
However, I believe that “shall” in the context of subsection 7, where one of the child’s parents is not a US citizen and the child has obtained citizenship by birth or heritage of a country other than the United States, to mean that the child has the absolute right to US citizenship upon providing adequate proof of his heritage AND that his US citizen parent meets the residence requirements of the section.
However, Mr. Y’s citizenship is not “self-executing”. Someone must do something to establish his citizenship. His mother did not obtain a certificate of registration of birth abroad before Mr. Y turned 18 and cannot now do so. Mr. Y has not yet sought to assert US citizenship by obtaining proof of same which he would do by obtaining a US passport. That process would require him to present evidence of his US citizenship. He is, of course, free to do that at any time he wishes. However, until he takes some action, his US citizenship in an “inchoate right”, that is, something that he can assert and cannot be taken away from him by the US government. Clearly, he must be a “citizen” to obtain a passport. However, being “entitled” to citizenship is not the same as “being” a citizen. In other words, US citizenship in Mr. Y’s case is not self-executing.
Anyway, if the birth and registration rates among Americans abroad had remained the same from 2002 to 2012, we’d expect the State Department to project 90 to 110 thousand applications for Consular Reports of Birth Abroad in 2012; instead they estimated not even seventy thousand.
Those missing registrations — potentially as many as twenty to forty thousand per year — represent a population of Americans abroad who, though not willing to make the big jump of renunciation for themselves, either don’t consider proof of U.S. citizenship to be important enough to be bothered to fill out a 20-minute form for their children, or are actively choosing to keep their children hidden from the U.S. government in their tender age. Presumably they plan to let the children themselves make the decision whether or not to register as U.S. citizens when they are old enough to understand the restrictions it will impose on their ability to lead a normal life outside of the United States.
Along with the rising number of people giving up citizenship — an estimated eight thousand last year, based on the FBI’s report of 4,650 renunciants added to NICS — this is more evidence of a shift in attitudes among Americans abroad towards their relationship with the country from which they emigrated.
@Eric: Thanks for your comments and the additional information.
I reviewed the Edinburgh, Scotland and Belfast, N. Ireland consulate websites and noted that these consulates are to be used by those who reside in those two parts of the UK, i.e., anyone in England and Wales should go to the London embassy:
Edinburgh Consulate:
“Reports of Birth. If your child is under the age of 18, was born in Scotland, and has a claim to U.S. citizenship by virtue of birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent you must apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) for the child before a U.S. passport can be issued. General pplication information can be found here, and information specific to Consulate General Edinburgh is here. When you have read all the instructions use the link at the bottom of that page to schedule an appointment at the Edinburgh Consulate General.”
Belfast Consulate:
“Passports & Reports of Birth
Welcome to the U.S. Passport & Citizenship Section of the U.S. Consulate General Belfast. We provide passport services for residents of Northern Ireland. ”
Since Scotland and N. Ireland comprise 11.3% of the total UK population, another approach to calculating the number of Registrations of Consular Births Abroad for FY2014 would be: 3,800/ (1-.113) = 4,284, say, 4,300.
Conclusion: A calculated 29.5% of children of USCs born in FY2014 in the UK were not registered: ((6,100 – 4,300) / 6,100)
@Eric
If you’re in England, they make you go to London, even if you live in the far north of England. It is a real pain the backside, since all of the appointments are in the morning, so there is no way you can do it in a day with a small child. At any rate, most of the population in the North can get to London by train more quickly than they can get to Edinburgh.
I have looked at the latest figures from the ONS, and the number of U.S.-born people seems to have gone down: They estimated that it is around 199 thousand (+ or – 19 thousand). What is more alarming is that the ONS considers 65 million of these (+ or – 12 thousand) to be British nationals, 121 thousand (+ or – 17 thousand) American nationals and 13 thousand (+ or – 6 thousand) the national of some other country. In reality, the U.S.government would probably consider almost all of them to be U.S. nationals, as well as many of their children. It may have greatly underestimated the impact of this legislation.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-326579
@Innocente & Publius: oops, thanks for corrections. Didn’t think they’d be that strict about the consular districts. So the UK non-registration rate probably really is towards the higher end of the range. Guess that makes more sense.
*Identification abuse*?
Thanks ONCE AGAIN, Eric. The only abuse I see is that we do not know explicitly from Department of State — must there be a CLAIM to US citizenship by that *child* if parent(s) did not register their child as a US Birth Abroad?
i.e., the ridiculous question: Will the US Department of State go to the trouble / expense / time to determine that my son or someone like him OR ANYONE who was not registered by their parent(s) as a Birth Abroad is a US-deemed US citizen by birth? (My sonwho has a developmental disability and therefore cannot either renounce his *by birth* US-defined US citizenship as he does not understand the meaning and ramifications of citizenship and renouncing such — the same that he would also not have the *requisite mental capacity* to go through the process of seemingly *claiming* such a by-birth citizenship with the process of providing documentation for obtaining a SSN, etc., etc.)?
This to me highlights the inconsistency of identification of who is and who is not a US-defined US citizen — i.e. that *level playing field*.
The only way for any of this to be FAIR is for the US to change to Residence-Based Taxation as the rest of the majority of the rest of the world’s countries.
If they cannot make that COMMON SENSE change, then it seems, especially with the consequences of US CBT, there must be a real CLAIM to US citizenship when the person in question is adult and of requisite mental capacity to make such a decision. Until such a CLAIM, US citizenship would not be in effect. One way or the other — not the immorality of the inconsistency (some better than others to fly under the radar) that now exists with FATCA and the IGAs implementing it.
The decision whether or not to CLAIM a US citizenship, knowing all of the benefits and the consequences of US citizenship-based taxation, should be up to the person — not that person’s parent(s) when that person is an infant or a child with no say into where or to whom he/she was born. Ludicrous absurdity.
The April 2015 number of the Foreign Service Journal has an article touching on the attribution (or not) of US nationality to infants born abroad to American mothers, specifically in Mexico: “Speaking Out: Citizenship and Unwed Border Moms: The Misfortune of Geography” by Amelia Shaw. http://www.afsa.org/PublicationsResources/ForeignServiceJournal/FeaturedContent/April2015SpeakingOut.aspx
Registration of birth abroad does not, of course, affect the fact of a child’s citizenship but it does constitute evidence of that fact and rebuttal of the presumption in law of alienage of any person born abroad. There are many such cases where nationality is dependent on proof of facts: qualifying prior residence or (as the case may be) uninterrupted presence in the USA; biological parentage (in IVF or suspected IVF cases), paternity, validity of adoption, and so on.
For many unregistered offspring there will be a lifetime option to “prove” US nationality either during minority or throughout life, as the case may be. Meanwhile, who has standing to bring an action (administratively at the State Department or through the Immigration Courts or the District Courts) to establish nationality? Presumably only the infant or his/her parent or guardian.
@Innocente wrote: “Thanks for your comments and the additional information.
I reviewed the Edinburgh, Scotland and Belfast, N. Ireland consulate websites and noted that these consulates are to be used by those who reside in those two parts of the UK, i.e., anyone in England and Wales should go to the London embassy:”
Not exactly correct. A birth must be registered with the consular section having jurisdiction over the place of birth. The reason for this (and it’s worldwide) is (beyond the competence issues, the limits of the exequatur granted to the consular officer and so on) because only that consular office is presumed to be familiar with the civil registration practices within its jurisdiction. (That includes issues of forgery and validity: think of the cancellation of all birth certificates ever issued by Puerto Rico before 2010: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=puerto%20rico%20birth%20certificates )
When my daughter was born in Belfast in the 1980s her birth had to be registered with the Belfast consulate even though we lived in London.
@Andy05 and all
For various reasons, many parents and children share bank accounts. Knowing how a USC can confer US citizenship to their offspring, is there anything to prevent an overly enthusiastic bank employee from asking the offspring of a known USC if they too are a USC? This could result in the child having to ‘prove a negative’, only in some cases they’ll actually learn that they are in fact US citizens due to the US’s convoluted citizenship laws.
@Bubblebustin asked “is there anything to prevent an overly enthusiastic bank employee from asking the offspring of a known USC if they too are a USC?”
As you know, sharing a bank account with an Amcit has negative consequences for the “alien”. From my research, such as it is, I am aware that the “unearned” income of a minor dependant who is a non-US Person, if not otherwise subject to US taxation (by residence, for example) is not attributable to the parent. (That is a feature common to US and UK tax laws; I haven’t looked at Canadian as I haven’t had to file Canadian and Québec tax returns for many years.)
That being the case, the effective consequences of a common account would depend on how it is titled. If it’s in trust, as most would be (a “Totten” trust under NY law, but other jurisdictions have the same kind of “payable on death” banking arrangements) then the funds are not property of the trustee in any sense. Indeed it’s not usually a trust within the contemplation of form 3520.
That said, anybody can ask any question. My Amcit daughter who has never lived in the USA opened a bank account for her son who is not an Amcit (he has 2 other nationalities, never mind). The bank said nothing, why would they? Indeed, how would they ever know my daughter is American? As it happens, she earns so little that she is not required to file US tax returns.
Unless, as nobody has yet said, failure to file a tax return when you have as little as $100 in a foreign bank, just to check the box at the bottom of form 1040 sched B is punishable…
But I do file for her. Because I have TurboTax and it’s easy. And I saw to it (as one can do) that she got 40 quarters of Social Security coverage (to get Medicare, mostly, if she ever needs it). She won’t get much of a pension, probably $100 or so. But the IRS could seize it, n’est-ce pas ?
@Bubblebustin wrote: “… only in some cases they’ll actually learn that they are in fact US citizens due to the US’s convoluted citizenship law”
I linked in another thread to this article, which happens to be relevant to my daughter: http://www.afsa.org/PublicationsResources/ForeignServiceJournal/FeaturedContent/April2015SpeakingOut.aspx (As it happens my daughter lived near the Canadian border for about a year when she was 1 year old. I am “sure” she crossed the border with me from time to time when I visited on business.)
There are zillions of persons born abroad who may or may not be Amcits, and for whom the “grant” of such status depends on proof of facts. For an older mother (and in many paternity cases and in many or most IVF situations), the State Dept. may ask for DNA evidence. As well as proof of physical presence or residence. When I spoke to the State Dept. American Citizens Services they said they’d accept an affidavit from me and copies of the child’s old passports to “prove” that she never crossed the border.
Since my daughter sees no advantage, and considerable disadvantage, in foisting American citizenship on her child, none of this will be brought to any consul’s attention. Ever. Unless, I suppose, for some reason I cannot fathom, some day the child wants to live and work in the USA.
To return to the earlier question: In such doubtful cases: is some banker going to decide for himself somebody’s nationality? That reminds me of nothing so much as the warning the State Department used to give out to males with Greek-sounding names: “If you visit Greece, even on a US passport, you risk conscription in the Greek Army.” They said that even to a Lebanese friend whose name was vaguely Greek-sounding. (That was a handy get-out during the Vietnam War for young Greek-Americans in Astoria, NY where I lived for a year.)
FWIW, was able to locate “Births of USCs in Switzerland”. This means that the newborn is being reporting to the Swiss government as a USC. These figures are only for non-temporary residents (Swiss permits L, B, C). The second figure is year-end population of USCs with non-temporary residence:
2014: 159/ 17,954 = 8.9 birthrate per 1,000
2013: 161/ 18,204 = 8.8
2012: 166/ 18,265 = 9.0
2011: 160/ 17,988 = 8.9
2010: 152/ 17,109 = 8.9
2009: 138/ 16,581 = 8.3
https://www.bfm.admin.ch/bfm/de/home/publiservice/statistik/auslaenderstatistik/archiv/2014.html
Tab: Bilanz, 4-30: Bilanz: Ständige ausländische Wohnbevölkerung, Laufjahr (2014), CH-Nati
As a side note, the non-temporary population of USCs in Switzerland has declined slightly the past two years. This is primarily due to negative net immigration of USCs with non-temporary status from Switzerland and naturalization:
Net immigation:
2014: -394 (i.e., emigration)
2013: -147
2012: -75
2011: -71
2010: +381
2009: +576
Naturalization of USCs to Swiss citizenship (by those who are permanently resident in Switzerland):
2014: 364
2013: 363
2012: 339
2011: 294
2010: 322
2009: 286
Below is calculation of the naturalization rates in Switzerland as a percentage of the non-temporary population for the top 15 countries. Not surprisingly, the rate of naturalization for those from non-EU countries is higher and for EU countries is lower. While I was somewhat surprised about increase of USC emigration from Switzerland in 2014, I was more surprised that the number of naturalizations did not increase for the USCs for 2014 (364) vs. 2013 (363). Emigration might be the best option for USCs who are not prepared to give up their US citizenship:
2014 Naturalizations as Percentage of Population in CH
Countries Naturalizations Population Percent
Bosnia 966 31’818 3.0%
Russia 397 13’443 3.0%
Croatia 838 30’197 2.8%
Serbia 1’865 69’748 2.7%
Kosovo 2’634 105’348 2.5%
Brazil 455 19’179 2.4%
M’donia 1’288 63’315 2.0%
USA.. 364 17’954 2.0%
Turkey 1’399 69’147 2.0%
France 1’750 116’809 1.5%
Italy.. 4’495 308’602 1.5%
Germany 4’120 298’614 1.4%
Spain 1’071 79’491 1.3%
UK… 449 41’073 1.1%
Portugal 2’458 263’010 0.9%
This is a further analysis of the 2014 naturalization figures for Switzerland. To naturalize under the normal program, an applicant must live in Switzerland for at least 12 years. Figures for 10 and more years of residence in the country are available by nationality – these figures would approximate the number of citizens of each nationality who could apply for citizenship under the normal program.
Then, assuming that applicants are applying for citizenship under the normal program requiring 12 years of residence, Americans showed a high percentage of naturalizations of those eligible in 2014, second only to Russians. This high percentage would be expected considering the pressure that Americans are under in Switzerland because of their US citizenship:
2014 Naturalizations as Percentage of Population in CH
Countries Naturalizations 10+ Yrs Residence % Naturalized
Russia 397 2’446 16.2%
USA.. 364 3’956 9.2%
Brazil 455 5’510 8.3%
Germany 4’120 88’908 4.6%
France 1’750 40’014 4.4%
Kosovo 2’634 67’045 3.9%
Bosnia 966 24’956 3.9%
Serbia 1’865 52’018 3.6%
Croatia 838 24’197 3.5%
UK… 449 13’011 3.5%
M’donia 1’288 42’400 3.0%
Turkey 1’399 49’705 2.8%
Spain 1’071 45’808 2.3%
Italy.. 4’495 217’028 2.1%
Portugal 2’458 122’134 2.0%
For FY2014, 66’854 babies were registered with the US government as born abroad. Using the estimated 8’700’000 American citizens who live abroad as the denominator, this suggests a birth rate of 7.7 per 1’000. Why is this so much lower than the typical 8.8 to 9.0 USC new babies per 1’000 USCs in Switzerland? Is there possibly some truth to the WSJ Blog that Americans abroad are willfully not registering their children?
http://travel.state.gov/content/dam/travel/CA%20by%20the%20Numbers-%20May%202015.pdf
As noted above, there are approx. 9 births per 1,000 Americans in Switzerland, as reported by Swiss government statistics. Marriages in Switzerland are 2/3 between two Swiss and 1/3 between a Swiss and a non-Swiss. Let’s assume that this ratio also holds for Americans here, i.e., 1/3 of Americans are married to Swiss here. If Swiss government statistics count as American only those children born to couples of two Americans (and also single American women) as Americans, they would possibly be missing the 1/3 of the births because they would be categorized as Swiss. These mixed-nationality marriages could be included in a corrected birth-rate statistic as follows: 9 per 1’000 children born to American couples abroad + (9 per 1’000 children born to American couples abroad x .5 to correct for mixed-nationality marriages, whose children are not included in the Swiss government statistics as Americans) = 13.5 births per 1’000 of Americans in Switzerland.
Note that the above analysis does not consider whether these births were reported to the US government. It is simply an effort to correct the perceived underreporting of American births in Switzerland. It would also be informative to compare Swiss government birth figures, corrected or uncorrected, to those reported to the US Embassy in Switzerland.
Swiss statistics on US nationality of mother who gave birth, number of births:
2014: 396
2013: 337
2012: 358
2011: 351
2010: 331
2009: 347
https://www.pxweb.bfs.admin.ch/Selection.aspx?px_language=en&px_db=px-x-0102020204_103&px_tableid=px-x-0102020204_103\px-x-0102020204_103.px&px_type=PX
Swiss statistics on US nationality of baby reported to Swiss government,
2014: 159
2013: 161
2012: 166
2011: 160
2010: 152
2009: 138
Any bets on how many of the births to US mothers of 396 vs. 159 reported to Swiss government in 2014 were registered with the Bern Embassy.
The above link should be to: “Live births by sex and birth order of the children and by nationality and marital status of the mother and by age class of the parents” at:
https://www.pxweb.bfs.admin.ch/default.aspx?px_language=en
Since USCs temporarily residing (and registered) in Switzerland can have babies too, I’ve included them in the denominator of the updated calculation below. Also, as births occur throughout the year, while the previous denominators were for end-of-year, an average with the previous end-of-year figure is used. Overall, this updated calculation shows a reduced birth rate of “Births of USCs in Switzerland”:
2014: 159/ 19,851 = 8.0 birthrate per 1,000
2013: 161/ 19,776 = 8.1
2012: 166/ 19,676 = 8.4
2011: 160/ 19,246 = 8.3
2010: 152/ 18,475 = 8.2
2009: 138/ 17,744 = 7.8
As a benchmark, the 2014 raw birth rate for Switzerland was 10.5 per 1,000, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation website, suggesting that USCs in Switzerland may not be as prolific as the general Swiss population. The same website lists the US birth rate for 2014 as 13.4 per 1,000.
Swiss statistical data indicating the nationality of the mother, however, suggests that USC women in Switzerland are quite prolific:
2014: 396/ 19,851 = 20.0 birthrate per 1,000
2013: 337/ 19,776 = 17.0
2012: 358/ 19,676 = 18.2
2011: 351/ 19,246 = 18.2
2010: 331/ 18,475 = 17.9
2009: 347/ 17,744 = 19.6
Comments:
1) I am not able to explain why USC mothers in Switzerland are producing 3.6 to 6.6 more children per 1,000 than the population in the USA. It is possible that a higher percentage of USC women in Switzerland are of a child-bearing age.
2) The above analyses indicate that USC mothers in Switzerland are not registering their newborns with the Swiss government as American citizens.
3) The rate of registration of USC babies born in Switzerland with the US State Department is unknown. I suspect that it may be low based on the fact that only roughly one-half of babies born to USC mothers appear in Swiss governmental statistics as USCs.
@Innocente
Is a baby who is born in Switzerland to non Swiss parents entitled to Swiss citizenship?
No. Swiss citizenship law is primarily “jus sanguinis”.
An interpretation of the above data is that around 1/2 of the babies of USC moms, born in Switzerland, are reporting the citizenship of the non-USC father to the Swiss government.
@innocente
I have my answer, at least one parent needs to be Swiss.
This is raw data and difficult to use. The US Consul-General in Munich said this in an interview:
“We have 95,000 Americans in the military and on the civilian side. The consulate issues about 5,000 passports each year and about 500 births abroad are reported each year.”
500/ 95,000 = 5.2 births per 1,000
http://www.thelocal.de/20151027/interview-with-first-female-woman-munich-united-states-consul-general
Also, according to Quartz, there are about 40,000 US troops in Germany in 2015:
http://qz.com/374138/these-are-all-the-countries-where-the-us-has-a-military-presence/
Wiki, citing Statista data for 2014, says that there are 108,845 US citizens living in Germany. My understanding is that US military personnel in Germany are not registered (angemeldet) with the German authorities and would not be included in this number.
USCIS raised their estimate of INA Section 322 naturalisations from 3,242 to 4,272 per year:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/02/02/2016-01794/agency-information-collection-activities-proposals-submissions-and-approvals-application-for
Section 322 is mostly used for “naturalisation through grandparents” for kids whose parents don’t meet the 301(g) physical presence requirements
https://americansabroad.org/issues/citizenship/naturalization-under-section-322/
USCIS’ old estimates are at the below link. The paperwork says the year 2014 estimate for number of filers was 6,484/year, but they seem to have accidentally doubled it; in the supporting statement they said they estimated a total of 2,756 filings per year for biological children and 486 for adopted children.
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201407-1615-001
Keep in mind that USCIS has been known to produce dubious estimates; for example they claimed in 2014 that they would only get 9,371 Form I-407 filers/year when their FOIA response to Shadow Raider showed that they had an annual average of nearly twice that many green card abandonments in recent years
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/01/24/2014-01379/agency-information-collection-activities-record-of-abandonment-of-lawful-permanent-resident-status
Also worth noting: as recently as 2010, USCIS dropped their estimate of Section 322 naturalisations from 1500/year down to 906/year
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201009-1615-009
The birth rate of USC mothers in Switzerland is calculated as ranging from 17.0 to 20.0 per 1,000 USCs for 2009 to 2014 and is much higher than the commonly reported 13.4 birth rate for the US. One possible explanation is that there are proportionally more adult USCs in Switzerland of a “birthing age”, which I am considering to be 20 to 44 years old, than in the US. This is in fact the case:
USCs in Switzerland of “Birthing Age”: 42.9%
US Residents of USA of “Birthing Age”: 33.5%
So, we are return to the question of why “Births of USCs in Switzerland”, as reported to the Swiss government, are so much less, ranging from 7.8 to 8.4 per 1,000 for the years 2009 to 2014.
An opinion: Families with a USC and a non-USC parent are often reporting the citizenship of the child to the Swiss government as that of the non-USC parent. This cannot be a surprise and may not be a recent development.
Note 1: Data source used to determine the age groups of USCs in Switzerland:
https://www.pxweb.bfs.admin.ch/Selection.aspx?px_language=de&px_db=px-x-0103010000_101&px_tableid=px-x-0103010000_101\px-x-0103010000_101.px&px_type=PX
Note 2: The split between USC males and females in Switzerland was 49.6% and 50.4% for all ages, respectively. These figures are similar to the US homeland figures of 49.2% and 50.8% for males and females, respectively.
This analysis determines whether the fertility rate of USC women in Switzerland varies from the US resident rate in the US for ages 15 to 44 years old:
Fertility Rate for USC Women in Switzerland: 67.8 per 1,000 (393/ 5,799 in 15 to 44 age bracket) (2014)
Fertility Rate for Women Residents of US: 62.5 per 1,000 (15 to 44 age bracket, 2013, latest available)
The fertility rate of USC women in Switzerland is a calculated 8.5% higher than for US homeland women. This fertility rate should result in a calculated birth rate of approx. 14.5 per 1,000 for USCs in Switzerland versus 13.4 per 1,000 birth rate for residents of the US. However, the birth rate of USC babies reported to the Swiss government is calculated to be in a range of 7.8 to 8.4 per 1,000 for the years 2009 to 2014.
This is fairly convincing evidence that an estimated 45% of babies born to USC mothers in Switzerland are reported to the Swiss government as other than US citizens.
“My Amcit daughter who has never lived in the USA
[…]
As it happens, she earns so little that she is not required to file US tax returns.
[…]
But I do file for her. Because I have TurboTax and it’s easy. And I saw to it (as one can do) that she got 40 quarters of Social Security coverage (to get Medicare, mostly, if she ever needs it). She won’t get much of a pension, probably $100 or so. But the IRS could seize it, n’est-ce pas ?”
If she never lived in the US, how did you get her 40 quarters of social security coverage? The only way I can figure out is if she’s self employed in a country that doesn’t have a totalization agreement with the US. Did you file returns for her, making her pay US self employment taxes even though her US income tax is zero?