Children of US Troops Born Overseas Will No Longer Get Automatic American Citizenship

www.military.com... 2Kg-YgPV6zLkXrs92SKUf0EXTz-37mMnOxMQNbNAUgNt0gRRgZSZO2l24

Previously, children born to U.S. citizen parents were considered to be "residing in the United States," and therefore would be automatically given citizenship under Immigration and Nationality Act 320. Now, children born to U.S. service members and government employees, such as those born in U.S. military hospitals or diplomatic facilities, will not be considered as residing in the U.S., changing the way that they potentially receive citizenship.

This isn't right. I really think this is a slap in the face to all military members. Hey let's send you to some God awful country. Hey while you're there if you happen to have a kid, or your spouse does, they aren't really a citizen yet.

Military families have to struggle with so much, now one more thing. To be fair, it wasn't just an automatic thing before this, it wasn't. Paperwork was still filled out, but if you were born on a military base, at an embassy etc, that was considered US soil, not anymore.

This seems like just one more hurdle. I imagine that a lot of women will want to come back to the US before the birth just to be on the safe side.

a reply to: JAGStorm

This isn't right.

I agree but much is not right anymore.

a reply to: JAGStorm

This is incorrect - it only pertains to ADOPTED children and not children born to servicemen and women.

I am trying to find the retraction (saw it earlier on twitville) - but it was definitely limited to adopted kids only.

There must be something off about this, this can’t be true. I just can’t believe this is true. There must be some mistake here. I’m just stumped completely stumped this this is ignoranta reply to: JAGStorm

Now that sounds more realistic. But still to slight our citizens serving the nation overseas this is still a slap in the facea reply to: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
There must be something off about this, this can’t be true. I just can’t believe this is true. There must be some mistake here. I’m just stumped completely stumped this this is ignoranta reply to: JAGStorm

www.uscis.gov...

This is straight from the government website

Thanks for that link Jag. So there is a lot of provisions in that lake but still it sounds like an overreach. So who do we blame for this. It’s my opinion that a child born of US citizens should be a citizen wherever they are borna reply to: JAGStorm

here is the retraction.....



from here....

Reason for the Policy Update We are updating this policy because it conflicts with the definition of “residence” in the INA and also with INA 322(d), which was enacted in 2008 after this policy was instituted, and refers to children who are residing abroad with members of the armed forces of the United States as “residing outside of the United States.” In addition, the previous guidance conflicts with Department of State guidance. Having conflicting policies can lead to inconsistent decisions on citizenship claims by USCIS and the Department of State and can cause confusion as to the date children of U.S. service members and government employees stationed abroad become U.S. citizens.

www.uscis.gov...

It looks like they are changing policies to be consistent with a 2008 law.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Maybe I'm interpreting it incorrectly, but from what I am reading on the actual government website things have changed.
"US soil" is no longer valid.

Who This Policy Update Affects
or one non-U.S. citizen parent and one U.S. citizen parent who does not meet these requirements).

Or something very common with military folks, a GI goes overseas get's married, or doesn't and has a baby with a local..

"This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens. This does NOT impact birthright citizenship. This policy update does not deny citizenship to the children of US government employees or members of the military born abroad,"

The article was updated and it looks like they need to change the title, since they found out it was wrong. This looks like a non-story.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I think we're dealing with a fluid situation atm where the correct interpretation of the new law will become apparent in the coming days.

The way I see it is that 2 US service members who conceive a child whilst deployed on foreign soil will result in the child automatically being granted US citizenship and 2 US service members who adopt a child whilst deployed on foreign soil will result in that child NOT automatically getting US citizenship. How citizenship is eventually granted once the 2 service members return to the US is vague and needs clarification.

After looking up INA 322(d), i found this:

(d) Children of Armed Forces members In the case of a child of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who is authorized to accompany such member and reside abroad with the member pursuant to the member's official orders, and is so accompanying and residing with the member- (1) any period of time during which the member of the Armed Forces is residing abroad pursuant to official orders shall be treated, for purposes of subsection (a)(2)(A), as physical presence in the United States; (2) subsection (a)(5) shall not apply; and (3) the oath of allegiance described in subsection (b) may be subscribed to abroad pursuant to section 1443a of this title.

[urluscode.house.gov...[/url]

This whole thing is starting to look like fake news.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: JAGStorm

I think we're dealing with a fluid situation atm where the correct interpretation of the new law will become apparent in the coming days.

The way I see it is that 2 US service members who conceive a child whilst deployed on foreign soil will result in the child automatically being granted US citizenship and 2 US service members who adopt a child whilst deployed on foreign soil will result in that child NOT automatically getting US citizenship. How citizenship is eventually granted once the 2 service members return to the US is vague and needs clarification.

This topic is blowing up in my circles.
There are going to be a lot of questions and scenarios. What about kids that have one citizen parent and one non-citizen etc.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

President Trump was right. NBC IS INDEED worse than CNN.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Fake news

Ken Cuccinelli, Acting Director of USCIS, said in a statement that "this policy update does not affect who is born a U.S. citizen, period."
"This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens. This does NOT impact birthright citizenship. This policy update does not deny citizenship to the children of US government employees or members of the military born abroad

We sure don't want those babies coming to the United States and taking jobs from honest, hard-working American babies.

a reply to: JAGStorm

What about kids that have one citizen parent and one non-citizen etc.

What happens when old mate the drunken sailor suddenly has a kid in Thailand 9 months later? Usually they bring them to the US and the missus and kids get protected under the Constitution and the fact that old mate is a US citizen.

a reply to: JAGStorm

This isn't actually correct. There is a lot of misinformation regarding this.

We still have the law that anyone born to a US citizen mother is a US citizen at birth, (still is). However, and this is where many often run afoul, is you are required to register the birth before the child's 18th birthday. It's always been this way. Children born in a foreign hospital or off base need to get their ducks in a row immediately and not wait thinking a passport will be issued tomorrow when you have a flight back next week; This has always been the case but it isn't difficult.

If a child is born on a US military base or is a child born to a US diplomat, they are still in most cases immediately US soil born in so much as their birth cert might even say Washington DC and be signed by the State Department. It's just the DOD and State Dept are redefining US Soil.

This change is about paperwork, what constitutes US Soil, and timeliness and nothing more. Military children are still Natural Born US citizens so long as the State Department is told before the child is 18. Easy peasy. Military parents are usually told how to go about this efficiently.

Well, if a person was born and lived in another country all the time they grew up, and was not in the military or had a government job, I think the kids should not be considered natural born citizens of the USA. There are US citizens that do that. One comes to mind, his parents moved to Canada and lived there for years then he moves to America and runs for president. That should not have been allowed.

But Soldiers are often deployed for many years and their kids do most times go to Military base schools so they are not brainwashed by the other country so bad. If someone is deployed to the middle east though, and their kids are hanging around with some radical muslim groups, we should actually interview these kids. The parents should have some input into this kind of thing.

Just being born there should not be a problem, it is how long they are there that is important.