GUWonder

This week the US Supreme Court has changed the rules for US citizenship acquisition by way of birth. Prospectively, unwed US citizen mothers who give birth abroad to a child will have to show five years of US residency -- up from one year prior to this week's ruling -- before their children are entitled to natural-born US citizenship status and a US passport from birth.

Whether this applies to children born to unwed US citizen mothers before this week is uncertain, as the process to document US citizenship at birth may take place for children who may have even been born say 17 years ago; also there can be adminstrative reviews that affect those previously issued a US passport as the child born of a US citizen parent abroad even many decades after having been issued a US passport and/or CRBA.

Pregnant US citizens who are single/unwed should be aware of this if considering foreign travel.

iamflyer

For those interested the case is Sessions v. Morales-Santana

guv1976

I think the apostrophe in the thread title needs to be deleted in order to make the title comprehensible.

GUWonder

Removal of the punctuation mark seems less useful than perhaps moving it a bit. Single US mothers' foreign-born children face increased US citizenship acquisition burden? The character count limit in thread titles had an impact on phrasing of the title, but I'm game for a better thread title as long as it fits the current rules/limits.

Onto the meat of the matter, US citizens and their foreign-born children may be in for a surprise. Keep in mind that administrative reviews can result in US citizenship and US passports being denied even to those individuals who were previously treated by the US as natural-born US citizens for many decades and have only ever presented (or had presented) previously valid documents about their identity and birth when getting prior US passports.

This ruling from SCOTUS is to apply prospectively -- not retroactively -- according to what I was told in passing. Whether that means the cutoff for application of this ruling is tied to the date of birth or to the date of administrative consideration of this ruling may matter. Even prior to this ruling, my suggestion to US citizens abroad and to their foreign-born children with US citizenship at birth: keep a file with evidence of as many years of US legal presence, proof of birth and proof of identity of the parent and child as possible and keep an encrypted digital vault with all such files. It's well possible for US citizens to be mistakenly denied recognition of US citizenship and even to end up deported as a non-resident, foreign national. And it's possible for State and DHS to mess up administrative decisions and/or even rescind prior decisions even in the absence of fraud or other criminal wrongdoing.

It may be a matter of time until the US' parental residency requirement to pass on US citizenship becomes a constitutional question, but back in 1790 the US decided by statute that there should be no such requirement for US citizen fathers who had any US residency history, but discriminated against US citizen mothers abroad by not granting them such right. That 1790 formalization was even signed by George Washington.

84fiero

The word "children" is missing from the title. I wondered how someone could have a "foreign-born face" but I guess, domestically-born remainder of their body?

GUWonder

I purposely excluded it for the interest of sticking to the character limit. I assume US citizens parent actual human beings.

guv1976

Ah, now I see.

Would "kids" instead of "children" have fit?

GUWonder

Not sure, but I would have tried to avoid that word in a thread title. Why? To pre-empt someone saying I shouldn't be talking about foreign-born goats in this forum unless and until the goats are having travel documents problems with US CBP or other parts of the USG.

essxjay

As for the thread titles, when in doubt let the NYT copy desk do the heavy lifting:

Supreme Court Bars Favoring Mothers Over Fathers in Citizenship Case

84fiero

Biggest problem would be the goats eating their documents before they even arrive!

In any case, sounds like more for potential mothers in this situation to be cognizant of. I didn't know all the history to it, interesting.

GUWonder

It will be interesting to see if single US citizens who give birth abroad to a child without a recognized US citizen as the other birth parent(s) of the child try to pursue a case about the favoritism shown to those married, US citizen-only couples who give birth abroad.

Why should a single US citizen who has a foreign-born child by herself/himself without another recognized US citizen parent be denied the same fundamental citizenship rights as married US citizens who have a foreign-born child with a recognized US citizen parent?

The standard for children born abroad to two US citizens is that they acquire US citizenship at birth as long as either parent has ever resided in the US. No five year rule, as even a year or less of US residency would work to meet the requirement.

The standard for children born abroad to a single US citizen parent is that they get US citizenship at birth only if the US citizen parent can prove at least 5 years of US residency. That's the situation after this SCOTUS ruling.

The original law signed by George Washington for children born abroad to a US citizen parent meant that children of single US citizen male parents would acquire US citizenship as natural-born citizens as long as the US citizen parent had ever resided in the US. No multi-year residency requirement was demanded by then President George Washington and Congress, and they very clearly made their intent and understanding of what was meant by a natural-born US citizen at the time of the US Constitution by formalizing the record in 1790.

If the Court wanted to provide for equal treatment of all US citizens who give birth abroad, this ruling certainly doesn't do that. SCOTUS didn't strike down the favoritism rooted in marital and double-parent status. We still have a situation of "all US citizens are equal but some US citizens are more equal than others" when it comes to giving birth abroad and the rights of the US citizen parent of a child.

As database-tied reviews for US passport application processing get more and more robust and as the government increasingly tries to measure us even years after seeking citizen services, there are likely to be more and more children of US citizens who end up at a US port of entry with their passports pulled -- if they even manage to get back to the US -- or get passport applications denied.

I'm counting the years until the next such citizenship case.

Section 107

Isn't it really the rights of a child born to an unmarried citizen parent that are in question and not the rights of the unmarried citizen parent?

GUWonder

No, it's really about the rights of the US citizen who is parenting a child.

While the case that sparked this change was about the child of a US citizen, that (now adult) child's case was built upon the rights of the US citizen parent.

Section 107

I just read the decision - now that makes sense. It was about the father's right to pass citizenship to the child.

This one hits close to home for me because one of my sons was born overseas and before the gubmint allowed his mother and I to marry.

GUWonder

Interestingly enough the rules also discriminate against US citizens based on the nature of their overseas presence. For example, US citizen parents needing 5 years US residency to have the right to pass US citizenship to a child can count overseas US government employment periods as part of that US residency requirement period; meanwhile a US citizen in much the same situation but who doesn't work for the government wouldn't be able to count that time overseas as part of the 5 year US residency period in order to qualify to pass on citizenship by birth. So US citizen parents abroad who work for the USG are "more equal" than other US citizen parents abroad when it comes to parenting a child outside of the US. This case didn't address that "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than other animals". I have to wonder if the plaintiff's attorney was so narrowly focused on getting rid of sexual discrimination that they missed the forests from the trees.