Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... s-will-not

The Trump administration said Wednesday that the children of certain U.S. military members and government employees working overseas will no longer automatically be considered United States citizens.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy on Wednesday rescinding previous guidance stating that children of U.S. service members and other government officials abroad are considered “residing in the United States” and automatically given citizenship under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The new rule will not apply to children who acquire citizenship at birth or while residing in the United States, according to the guidance. That includes children born abroad to U.S. citizens who have resided in the United States at some point in the past five years.

The new policy guidance states that USCIS “no longer considers children of U.S. government employees and U.S. armed forces members residing outside the United States as ‘residing in the United States’ for purposes of acquiring citizenship under INA 320.”

Note - I edited the title to make it more accurate than the Hill's headline.


CID - what are the practical applications of this?

dbackjon wrote:Note - I edited the title to make it more accurate than the Hill's headline.


CID - what are the practical applications of this?

Brown kids don't get auto-citizenship...

dbackjon wrote:Note - I edited the title to make it more accurate than the Hill's headline.


CID - what are the practical applications of this?

*I edited the title*

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Note - I edited the title to make it more accurate than the Hill's headline.


CID - what are the practical applications of this?

*I edited the title*

The title makes it seem like ALL children, when it is a smaller group that this would effect.

Have to correct those right-wing news sources.

dbackjon wrote:Note - I edited the title to make it more accurate than the Hill's headline.


CID - what are the practical applications of this?

I’m not sure how broad it is- I only adjudicated a child’s citizenship in one or two cases like this while in El Salvador.

Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) can serve in the military and it is their children that are affected here. The policy is an interpretation of the INA as it applies to jus soli citizenship. So, if you are a US Citizen and in the military, this doesn’t affect you. Your kids are still USCs at birth. If you are an LPR, then you have to petition for them on an I-130 and then they still get LPR status and in most cases can naturalize on arrival (service members who are not USCs have expedited naturalization, their kids would naturalize on arrival in the US if the parent is a citizen already)

The actual rule that is being rescinded is just that - a rule - and so it can be rescinded. The INA is such a poorly constructed framework of laws that it is full of sections that are wide open to interpretation. So in this particular case, at some point a rule was made to help service members’ children “natural born” versus “naturalized”. Once you are a citizen though, it doesn’t really matter.

Personally, I find this to be a crass and petty move, but not one that will cause lasting harm outside of temporary inconvenience. BUT - it illustrates what immigration officials like DHS and consular officers have long known... the INA is a Byzantine pile of crap in desperate need of a complete re-write. And doing so would literally give nearly everybody on both sides what they want (except for pure nativists and open borderers). But we have all allowed Congress to become the physical manifestation of our collective angst and so I do not see it happening, ever. And the result is that we have a law which is full of holes, inconsistencies, and injustices which have to be reconciled with the rulemaking process - which can and will be abused by every executive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks.

Wouldn't one difference between Natural born and naturalized be the ability to run for President?

And also, couldn't this create situations that if a LPR has a child while stationed in the US, they are a USC, but when stationed in Germany, another that is not?

dbackjon wrote:Thanks.

Wouldn't one difference between Natural born and naturalized be the ability to run for President?

And also, couldn't this create situations that if a LPR has a child while stationed in the US, they are a USC, but when stationed in Germany, another that is not?

Natural born versus naturalized could have an effect in theory, but it has not been tested, and conventional wisdom has been that if it were tested the SCOTUS would hold that a child born to a USC with qualifying physical presence is natural born regardless of where he or she is born. So I guess the answer there is maybe. John McCain would have been a test case under the new rules.

As for LPRs- a non citizen cannot convey citizenship. An LPR’s child needs to be born in the US- so I misspoke. I got hung up on the LPRs and realized that this is actually about Sections 322 and 320, which means LPRs aren’t affected. So never mind on them. This affects USC parents employed by the military or USG overseas.

It creates more paperwork for USC parents abroad, but nobody’s entitlement to citizenship is affected.

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Note - I edited the title to make it more accurate than the Hill's headline.


CID - what are the practical applications of this?

I’m not sure how broad it is- I only adjudicated a child’s citizenship in one or two cases like this while in El Salvador.

Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) can serve in the military and it is their children that are affected here. The policy is an interpretation of the INA as it applies to jus soli citizenship. So, if you are a US Citizen and in the military, this doesn’t affect you. Your kids are still USCs at birth. If you are an LPR, then you have to petition for them on an I-130 and then they still get LPR status and in most cases can naturalize on arrival (service members who are not USCs have expedited naturalization, their kids would naturalize on arrival in the US if the parent is a citizen already)

The actual rule that is being rescinded is just that - a rule - and so it can be rescinded. The INA is such a poorly constructed framework of laws that it is full of sections that are wide open to interpretation. So in this particular case, at some point a rule was made to help service members’ children “natural born” versus “naturalized”. Once you are a citizen though, it doesn’t really matter.

Personally, I find this to be a crass and petty move, but not one that will cause lasting harm outside of temporary inconvenience. BUT - it illustrates what immigration officials like DHS and consular officers have long known... the INA is a Byzantine pile of crap in desperate need of a complete re-write. And doing so would literally give nearly everybody on both sides what they want (except for pure nativists and open borderers). But we have all allowed Congress to become the physical manifestation of our collective angst and so I do not see it happening, ever. And the result is that we have a law which is full of holes, inconsistencies, and injustices which have to be reconciled with the rulemaking process - which can and will be abused by every executive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a terrific post. THIS is why CID continues to be the MVP (Most Valuable Poster) on this site.

dbackjon wrote: Wouldn't one difference between Natural born and naturalized be the ability to run for President?

CAA Flagship wrote:

dbackjon wrote: Wouldn't one difference between Natural born and naturalized be the ability to run for President?

I love Forest Whitaker! That lazy eye just makes me laugh.

CAA Flagship wrote:

dbackjon wrote: Wouldn't one difference between Natural born and naturalized be the ability to run for President?

The ironical thing here is that regardless of where Obama was born, he was a “natural born” USC at birth by virtue of the fact that his mother was a USC with qualifying physical presence. The whole birth certificate thing was ultimately going to be immaterial.

In a way, I kind of wish he HAD been born abroad and then SCOTUS could have put the whole thing to bed by confirming what natural born actually means in the eyes of the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It almost as if the "birther" thing wasn't a high browed constitutional discussion.

CID1990 wrote:qualifying physical presence

She sounds hot.

Skjellyfetti wrote:It almost as if the "birther" thing wasn't a high browed constitutional discussion.

What, are you scoffing at conspiracy theories, Reek?

USCIS is now saying this will only affect 25 kids a year. So why bother?

dbackjon wrote:USCIS is now saying this will only affect 25 kids a year. So why bother?

It will affect more than that.

But USCIS is gathering as much adjudicatory ability to the domestic side as it can. They are going to online petition and form filing, and closing several overseas offices. It follows that the rule change is related to this. With online applications, the process ultimately will become more convenient in most cases. But I don’t see how in this particular case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After seeing some additional information on the change, I think USCIS may be correct in saying the number will be exceedingly small. It will affect the children of USC parent(s) where neither parent has the required physical presence in the U.S. to transmit their citizenship at birth. This will be a very small number of people. Myabe more than 25, but I would not expect it to go over 100 worldwide.

The ones who cannot transmit citizenship at birth will simply have to travel with the child to the US when they PCS, and the child naturalizes upon entry to the US under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Note - I edited the title to make it more accurate than the Hill's headline.


CID - what are the practical applications of this?

*I edited the title*

@ dbj jumping on a fake news narrative.

CID1990 wrote:After seeing some additional information on the change, I think USCIS may be correct in saying the number will be exceedingly small. It will affect the children of USC parent(s) where neither parent has the required physical presence in the U.S. to transmit their citizenship at birth. This will be a very small number of people. Myabe more than 25, but I would not expect it to go over 100 worldwide.

The ones who cannot transmit citizenship at birth will simply have to travel with the child to the US when they PCS, and the child naturalizes upon entry to the US under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.

All its doing is closing a potential loophole where a non citizen serving in the military overseas has a baby with a person overseas and the baby could potentially have citizenship becaus there was no specifically worded policy in place for the situation. But "OMG TRUMP HATES THE MILITARY DON'T VOTE FOR HIM" narrative is too great to pass up.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

dbackjon wrote:USCIS is now saying this will only affect 25 kids a year. So why bother?

Just to rile up libs.

mainejeff2 wrote:

89Hen wrote: Just to rile up libs.

Fetus worshiper.

Child killer