Some Children born out of country to US troops and Americans no longer automatic US citizens

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jul 25, 2018
1,806
498
213
48
Boulder, CO
#3
Thank god, something to be outraged about today!!!

Spoiler Alert: Here's some context

"After some confusion over exactly who would be affected by the new policy, the USCIS issued clarification Wednesday evening. The USCIS said the change may impact children born to non-citizens and adopted by a citizen government employee or service member; non-citizen parents who naturalized after the child’s birth; and two U.S. citizen government employees or U.S. service members who did not meet the requirements to transmit citizenship to their child, or one non-citizen parent and one citizen parent who does not meet the requirements.

USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli emphasized on Twitter that the policy change “only affects children who were born outside the US and were not US citizens.”

“The policy update doesn’t deny citizenship to the children of US [government] employees or members of the military born abroad,” Cuccinelli added. “This policy aligns USCIS’ process with the Department of State’s procedures for these children - that’s it. Period.”
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
29,226
15,772
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#6

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,705
32,069
1,743
oklahoma city
#7
Thank god, something to be outraged about today!!!

Spoiler Alert: Here's some context

"After some confusion over exactly who would be affected by the new policy, the USCIS issued clarification Wednesday evening. The USCIS said the change may impact children born to non-citizens and adopted by a citizen government employee or service member; non-citizen parents who naturalized after the child’s birth; and two U.S. citizen government employees or U.S. service members who did not meet the requirements to transmit citizenship to their child, or one non-citizen parent and one citizen parent who does not meet the requirements.

USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli emphasized on Twitter that the policy change “only affects children who were born outside the US and were not US citizens.”

“The policy update doesn’t deny citizenship to the children of US [government] employees or members of the military born abroad,” Cuccinelli added. “This policy aligns USCIS’ process with the Department of State’s procedures for these children - that’s it. Period.”
Whether it is something worthy of outrage or not, why do it? I would think new citizens that went directly into foreign service or in the military are a pretty decent group of people. And, it doesn’t stop their children, just creates a new, unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle. Nobody is saying what issue government is trying to solve. The rationale is that it only hurts some people and not that much.

I kinda remember the pre-Trump days when conservatives didn’t like big government stuff like extra bureaucracy for no good outcome. Now they defend big gov all day long. Maybe that’s just my TDS talking.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
7,881
3,727
743
49
#9
Thank god, something to be outraged about today!!!

Spoiler Alert: Here's some context

"After some confusion over exactly who would be affected by the new policy, the USCIS issued clarification Wednesday evening. The USCIS said the change may impact children born to non-citizens and adopted by a citizen government employee or service member; non-citizen parents who naturalized after the child’s birth; and two U.S. citizen government employees or U.S. service members who did not meet the requirements to transmit citizenship to their child, or one non-citizen parent and one citizen parent who does not meet the requirements.

USCIS Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli emphasized on Twitter that the policy change “only affects children who were born outside the US and were not US citizens.”

“The policy update doesn’t deny citizenship to the children of US [government] employees or members of the military born abroad,” Cuccinelli added. “This policy aligns USCIS’ process with the Department of State’s procedures for these children - that’s it. Period.”
Whether it is something worthy of outrage or not, why do it? I would think new citizens that went directly into foreign service or in the military are a pretty decent group of people. And, it doesn’t stop their children, just creates a new, unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle. Nobody is saying what issue government is trying to solve. The rationale is that it only hurts some people and not that much.

I kinda remember the pre-Trump days when conservatives didn’t like big government stuff like extra bureaucracy for no good outcome. Now they defend big gov all day long. Maybe that’s just my TDS talking.
This doesn't add bureaucracy, it eliminates needless waste because the 2 departments were treating things differently. By aligning their system it should be better.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,705
32,069
1,743
oklahoma city
#10
This doesn't add bureaucracy, it eliminates needless waste because the 2 departments were treating things differently. By aligning their system it should be better.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
People that were previously automatically citizens now have to fill out paperwork and turn it in to attempt to obtain citizenship and you do not think that is bureaucracy? LOL. That is like a textbook definition of bureaucracy.

If they wanted to streamline 2 departments (why are there two departments doing this?) then they could have had both allow the children of citizen servicemen be citizens instead of choosing the extra paperwork way.

If this was the Obama administration, I would be saying the exact same thing. The only difference is you would be agreeing with me.
 
Sep 18, 2006
1,090
1,453
1,743
SEC country :(
#11
I'd encourage all of you who formed the impression that Trump is doing something nefarious here, please set that opinion aside.

Some of the hot takes that initially came out were fundamentally flawed, I believe.

Wait until the babbling idiots stop, wait until the dust settles, then we can all think about this rationally and determine the truth of the matter.

Children born overseas of U.S. citizens will still be U.S. citizens from birth, as long as certain residence criteria are met by the parents. That has always been the case according to law. You can look up old articles about it. That has not changed.

If a child is born overseas because of a parent being on active duty, and the child has a right to U.S. citizenship, the parents have always had to file paperwork with the local U.S. embassy to ensure correct documentation, sort of like here in the U.S. filing paperwork with the hospital to get a birth certificate from the state. That has always been the case; the kid wouldn't be able to get a passport without doing that. My niece was born in Panama when my brother-in-law was serving down there. I assure you that they had to file paperwork and had to get a passport when she travelled as a very small infant; I saw the picture of the tiny baby on the passport.

If that's the paperwork that needs to be filed to become a citizen, okay, but it's always been that way. But, it would have been very difficult for my sister to leave Panama with my niece without the passport.

A military base overseas has never been considered U.S. soil. So, a kid born in a hospital on a military base overseas is not born on U.S. soil for the purpose of determining citizenship. That has always been the case. From the reading I've been doing, it seems that recent changes to immigration law have been conflicting and been interpreted differently by different organizations.

For the residency requirement that needed to be satisfied to be considered a citizen, a military member serving overseas was being considered to be living on U.S. soil. It seems that the recent clarification by USCIS is to say that this is not the case.

However, this change does not affect kids born to U.S. citizens who have satisfied the residency requirements. Some kids who would be affected are kids who are adopted overseas while parents are living/serving overseas and kids who are born overseas to parents who are not citizens of the U.S. but a parent is serving overseas (yes, non-citizens can serve in the military).

It seems that previously, these kids were automatically receiving U.S. citizenship because USCIS was treating the military member serving overseas as residing on U.S. soil. So, any residency requirements for adoption were being satisfied.

Honestly, reading rules and regulations gives me a headache. This is my feeble attempt to make sense out of this situation and apply Occam's razor to it. Because, c'mon, it doesn't pass the sniff test to not grant citizenship to kids born of U.S. citizens.

Anyway, I'm a big dummy, and I could be wrong, but I think this is just a big case of OrangeManBad and the media doing a horrible job of reporting this.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,244
5,207
1,743
Katy, TX
#12
Does no one remember the questions about John McCain's citizenship?
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html

A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue
By ADAM LIPTAKJULY 11, 2008

In the most detailed examination yet of Senator John McCain’s eligibility to be president, a law professor at the University of Arizona has concluded that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.”

The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over Mr. McCain’s eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make Mr. McCain a natural-born citizen.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,125
16,441
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#13
So when people say we don’t need more laws and regulations we just need to enforce what whats on the books what they really mean is:
enforce selectively and add or subtract based on what I deem appropriate, and regardless if it comes from this administration, act with righteous indignation based on a msm headline, yep, sounds about right.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,705
32,069
1,743
oklahoma city
#15
It is hard for us on this board full of big Federal government advocates burdening the people. Stay strong!

Someday, a dem will get elected again and we can make the exact same posts and we will get likes too when they all start bitching about government overreach again!
 
Last edited:

John C

Deputy
A/V Subscriber
Oct 13, 2011
1,641
2,221
743
64
#16
I’m not sure I know what’s now different. My wife was born in Stuttgart, Germany, in a German hospital. She has a German birth certificate. Her parents were Americans and her father was active duty U.S. Army. Her parents had to file the appropriate paperwork when/before they rotated back to the U.S. When Mrs. C turned 18, (she was still Ms. F at the time) she had to choose whether to be a U.S. citizen or a German citizen.

It seems obvious to me that two people cannot just leave the U.S. as two and come back as three without some amount of paperwork involved. There has to be some bureaucracy, such as passports, translated birth certificates (in my wife’s case), or some proof of where the third person originated. There’s more to the argument than just “Half-black Man Bad, Orange Man Good” or vice versa.
 
Aug 16, 2012
1,717
958
743
56
#18
Father was in the Air Force. Older sister was born in Newfoundland in 1960. Parents had to fill out paperwork on her behalf upon returning to the states. This is nothing new. Maybe reimplemented, but hardly some new law invented by Trump as the left would like to think. Sister used to brag about the form claiming she was more of a citizen since she actually had paperwork to prove it.
 

ksupoke

We don't need no, thot kuntrol
A/V Subscriber
Feb 16, 2011
12,125
16,441
743
dark sarcasm in the classroom
#20
This entire thread is an example.
No it’s really not, I might disagree with a law I might consider the law or regulation as overreach but if they enforce a law on the books that’s what they’re supposed to do.
To combat that we have to elect officials who will remove bad laws and gvt overreach from the books, iow, don’t like the law work to change it.

Adding laws to create more enforcement to an existing law (gun control aae) is different.

full disclosure, I support the memorializing of this rule