It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm




Maybe I'm interpreting it incorrectly,

Naw , looks as if you just get your info from crap sources
This was announced on Twitter by some goof named Tal Kopan (reporter for the San Fransisco Chronicle)
Who did a back up and back out later......
I like the replies ......

edit on 8/28/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm




This topic is blowing up in my circles.

Change "circles"



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

From the same site:


This policy does not affect children born outside the United States who were citizens at birth or who have already acquired citizenship, including children who: Were born to two U.S. citizen parents, at least one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions before the child’s birth;
Were born to married parents, one of whom is a U.S. citizen and one a foreign national, if the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or one of its outlying possessions for at least five years, at least two of which were after they turned 14 years old;
Were born to unmarried parents, one of whom is a U.S. citizen and one a foreign national, if the U.S. citizen parent meets the requirements listed in INA 309;


So as long as the kid is born to one or two citizens, one of whom has resided in the US at some point, then they’re still a citizen. Seems more like clarification of already existing policy than some huge change.
edit on 28-8-2019 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: JAGStorm




This topic is blowing up in my circles.

Change "circles"


My circle consists of 80% military brats, quite possibly one of the best circles a person can have.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: JAGStorm




Maybe I'm interpreting it incorrectly,

Naw , looks as if you just get your info from crap sources
This was announced on Twitter by some goof named Tal Kopan (reporter for the San Fransisco Chronicle)
Who did a back up and back out later......
I like the replies ......


You mean the US government website?



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: JAGStorm




This topic is blowing up in my circles.

Change "circles"


My circle consists of 80% military brats, quite possibly one of the best circles a person can have.

If I was in a circle where things were "blowing up" (over nothing), I would be looking for another circle where things were peaceful .

edit on 8/28/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: JAGStorm




Maybe I'm interpreting it incorrectly,

Naw , looks as if you just get your info from crap sources
This was announced on Twitter by some goof named Tal Kopan (reporter for the San Fransisco Chronicle)
Who did a back up and back out later......
I like the replies ......


You mean the US government website?

Patience is a virtue.
I wonder why the government does not have a policy of taking their sites offline while they update and verify ?

edit on 8/28/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
All kinds of high profile and one sided "mistakes" in the MSM this week especially today.

Somebody's nervous about something else 🤣

I wonder what ? 🤣



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

You misunderstood the website and INA law. Nothing is changing.

What is changing is how the State Department and DOD is labeling US Soil abroad and who is residing on it.

It really doesn't matter tho because proving natural born is easy if you have a birth cert and one of the parents listed was a US citizen at the time of birth. If anything this will stop the panic I've witnessed of US military parents deciding Junior wants to attend school in the US or daddy is retiring and they realized Junior was never registered as foreign born and oops he is 18! This is a huge problem with US military stationed in England from my experience.

ETA: Trump can't change existing INA anyway so I'm sure any misunderstanding will quickly be addressed and clarified. I imagine the DOD will clarify US Soil to better incompass anyone that is being abiguiously interpreted as not living on it.



edit on 28-8-2019 by Identified because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
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.


Summit wrong with that?



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   
The title of this thread is very misleading.

Here is the actual policy and the relevant portion:

www.uscis.gov...




posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

Maybe I'm viewing this from a military brat lens.

The residency requirement:



The U.S. citizen parent must establish five years of physical presence in the United States (at least two of which were after they turned 14 years old) before they may file an N-600K on the child’s behalf. However, in the case of a child of a U.S. service member who is residing abroad with them on their official orders, the parent can count any period of time residing abroad on official orders as physical presence in the United States.


I think this is worded oddly. (I think it is talking about both parents and grandparent?) 99% of brats I knew did not live in the United states at all from 14-18 let alone two years. If those brats graduated overseas and enlisted they would not meet these requirement (maybe) for their children?




edit on 28-8-2019 by JAGStorm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

I know exactly what you mean by the military brat lens.

The last portion of what you quoted is what solves the issue.

So essentially if you are a service member, or a civil servant (GS or SES), serving overseas on orders, you have nothing to worry about.

This only applies to non-citizen service members, which believe it or not there are a few, and us civilians who live abroad unrelated to government service.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

This is nothing new with the INA law.

Anecdote: Had a couple-friend who found this out the hard way. She was US military brat who had lived in England since she was a teen. He was a Brit. They met on the economy, married, stayed in England and had two children. Her son one day decided he wanted to attend a university in the US and learns he is not a US Citizen. Mom thought he was automatically because she was a US citizen. The Embassy quoted her the INA and told her she should have registered his birth with the embassy soon after birth but since he was 18 now it was a no go.

edit on 28-8-2019 by Identified because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

They will meet the requirements if they have mil orders. This constitutes US Soil. The children are also considered Natural Born so long as they are registered before their 18th birthday and the US citizen parent is listed on the birth cert.


edit on 28-8-2019 by Identified because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
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.


YUP.
NBC already posted a correction.

Not a good few days for NBC's journalistic veracity...what with the retracted Lawrence O'Donnell story and all.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Whatever this eventually means, after walkbacks and re-re-explanations, it is income for immigration lawyers and more worry for Americans overseas, notably for immigrants serving us in harms way in our military. It is certainly an effort to allow the executive branch, not Congress, to define citizenship. Another step seeing what they can get away with, to making the Executive supreme over the Congress.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Thanks, I knew that sounded a wrong. So a reply to: Shamrock6



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:21 PM
link   
nvm
edit on 28-8-2019 by mekhanics because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   
(D) politicians and (D) pundits running like crazy with this fake story.

They ALL are falling for it like it's really true 🤣 💫 🤣







 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join