GUWonder

I didn't know that you were talking about the US citizen parent being married to a non-US father.

I was referring to the US citizen parent being the father, as in the example below.

For years now, college transcripts of the US citizen father do come into play for children born outside of the US to married people, with the father being a US citizen married to the non-US mother at the time of the child's birth.

The requirement for an ordinary US citizen father (who is married to a non-US citizen mother) to relay US citizenship to his child born outside the US today ordinarily includes a five year US physical presence requirement for the US father. [Those on diplomatic or military assignment outside of the US have their time outside of the US in those roles counted as US physical presence but I'm going to stick to talking about ordinary US citizens with no official government employment.] That US physical presence requirement can be done even after the US citizen father is 18 years of age as long as it occurs before the child is born and it doesn't require any of the years to be before the age of 18.

The following is an example of a natural born US citizen born abroad to a US citizen father married to a non-US citizen mother.

1. US-born Moroccan citizen whose physical presence in the US was limited to:

a. one month at birth and never after that in the US as a minor;
b. five years as an adult doing a BSc+MBA in DC; and
c. around 2.5 years of work at an investment bank in NY

with (a) documented by US-issued passport; with (b) documented with university transcripts; with (c) documented by work/tax records

2. The US-born Moroccan citizen moves to Canada upon resigning from the investment bank in NY and moves to Canada.

3. In Canada, that US-Moroccan citizen marries a Swedish-Brazilian and lives there with her for 10 years.

4. The Swedish-Brazilian wife of that US-Moroccan citizen gives birth to a child.

That child is a US citizen even as the child's father only lived in the US for just one month before the age of 18.

Currently most children born abroad to a non-US mother in wedlock with a US citizen father are US citizens even when the US father has no/almost no history of US physical presence in the US prior to the father reaching the age of 18 years but has an extensive US physical presence requirement only in his adult years.

GUWonder

Yes.

Maluku_Flyer

Please elaborate. Better treatment at immigration because of a lack of historical baggage? Such as never having to travel to former colonies?

CMK10

We have a family friend who claims Netherlands, Canadian and US Citizenship. He's an academic and it's helped him out very much.

tentseller

Right to live and work anywhere in North America and EU is handy to have as an academic. Many Academic postings have restriction on candidate's citizenship.

GUWonder

Irish passports enable travel to more countries without the Irish citizen or her/his passport going to embassy/consulate for a visa.

GUWonder

As long as she lived in the US for one consecutive year in the US and had the child out of wedlock at the time of birth of the child, then Under current rules such child would be a US citizen.

tentseller

Exactly. When you are travelling with a country's passport you are also carrying that countries historical baggage(conflict and colonization).

Silver Fox

Yes, I still get upset about the Roman Empire whenever I see an Italian passport. It usually leaves me in floods of tears. I know that the same happens to some people when they see Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish passports. Blast those Vikings !

ajax

IME, I have never experienced any sort of attention regarding my countries' respective histories. I have been to several former British colonies and have never even got a second glance. Perhaps I have been lucky, but I'm not certain.

hfly

GU, you really keep changhing the goal posts here, and quite frankly speaking it is frustrating.

We are not talking about childred born out of wedlock, we are not talking about US government employees of any flavour who are assigned outside the United States, nor anyother extenuating circumstances.

The general regs are pretty black and white and taken from the DoS website linked above:

"A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship."

This was the rule ealrlier this year, this was the rule last year, the year before that, the decade before that and in fact the decade before that. You keep stating "FATHER" however it applies to EITHER US CITIZEN PARENT, as I can say for sure not just by having spoken with DoS personnel, but knowing two different US citizen mothers married to foreigners who having had their children abroad were UNABLE to get their kids passports for quite some time due to the difficulty in getting any documentation stating that they had lived in the US for the required times (one was a classic, the school burnt down thinga nd both parents were deceased, the other was an army brat who had lived in so many places and attended so many schools that it took some time to gather the documentation). Not to mention the fact that I had to personally go through the process in recent years. I would conservatively say that I have further known at least 100 couples who have had to submit such documents over the last decade or so, and that while often a formality must be done and must satisfy the Vice Consul or whomever with these documents, of these 80 were US father, 20 were US mother.

I am not doubting the example that you have stated, there are a dozen loopholes to the rules that can be exploited through even non-governmental employment if the papers are done in the right way, or even the employment of the US citizen parent or even spouse in subsequent years (among other things). However the law is as I stated above and that IS what 99% of people in such situations have to submit and if they don't the kid does not get it.

The solution of course is for anyone who does not meet the requirement and who marreis a non US citizen to just make sure the kid is born in the US to avoid any such troubles/hassles in the future as this whole thing was brought in at the time of the Rodino Act to stop generations of US citizens multiplying abroad with no connection to the US (primarily from Mexico).

Santander

I've been to many former British colonies on a British passport with no problems.
Most former colonies of European countries today, with some exceptions like Zimbabwe are on relatively good terms with their "mother country", look at all of the countries being propped up by British and particularly French aid. I was trying to get at the fact that countries like the UK and US are seen by many people in the world as "modern Western imperialists" trying to impose themselves on to other countries. Hardly any people in the world see Ireland as an oppressor of any sort and their citizens would probably enjoy safer travel in the more marginal areas in the world for foreigners. Nordic and NZ passports are probably among the most desirable passports to have too.

Silver Fox

The Canadians will be up in arms that you did not include them. And don't forget that it is law that the Canadian flag must be displayed on their luggage at all times so you know the nationality of the person that is bashing into you with a backpack down the aisle of the plane.

Aviatrix

In my previous post I was simply going by what I had been told... but your question has prompted me to do some research and I found this:

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/br...yingterritory/

So - it's called "permanent residence", and it's automatic after five years.

I would have come under the pre-2000 rules, and it would appear that either I misremembered what I was told then, or I was told something that was inaccurate - any children of mine would, in fact, have been British even if I had not been resident in the UK for five years.

Santander

Well, Canadians only think of the fact that they're better off when travelling than Americans and think they're the best in the world based on that. However, Americans should be thankful for Canada's existence, who else would they pretend to be when they're abroad? They don't realise that the only reason Canadian passports are good for travelling is that people don't really care about Canada.