Posted on 12/26/2016 1:11:43 PM PST by rosepetal81
LOL. I suppose it’s with a shot, but I bet that goes unread as well as the other times it’s been posted on this thread.
Will88 doesn’t care about the facts or the law. He’s just enjoying the day after Christmas trolling this thread. Don’t waste your effort trying to educate him, just feel good about yourself for having given him some entertainment today.
From the article we know where the birth occurred, the parentage, the citizenship of the parents, whether the parents were wed or not, and the approximate date of birth.
Where, when, to whom and their citizenship. What relevant information do you contend we lack? Please be specific.
That depends on several additional facts.
1)Was he born in the US or in Kenya.
2)Was he born within wedlock or without? (Sub question for that - even if she had a putative marriage, was the father married to another woman at the time, and thus the marriage invalid?)
3)Who was the real biological father and was he a US citizen?
From what's been posted in this thread, it is not clear whether that five years residency after the age of fourteen must have taken place before the birth, or could it be after the birth? If before, then no US citizen woman younger than nineteen could give birth in a foreign country and transmit citizenship to the child. Seems pretty unjust to say the least.
It looks as if the mother and child moved back to the US and stayed at some point, with the boy finishing HS in the US, unless the mother gave up the child to someone else and went back to England. The son lived in the US for many years. Nothing tells us if the mother remained in the US, or for how many years. But she could very well have lived here for five or more years.
In comment #33, kabar gave the residency part of the code and I don't see that it says the five years after age fourteen must have been before the birth. If she returned with a three year-old and remained, that sure seems like it should qualify the child for citizenship.
There are just not enough known facts to be sure of this.
I think he'll need a new sponsor if she dies from the cancer before it is granted. I'll probably have a chance to check with some immigration attorneys tomorrow. This would actually make a fairly good case study as to how many ways someone can screw up.
I gave you a link to the law. You called it worthless. Maybe you should go read it.
Do not alter titles.
Bingo...
Trolling, trolling, trolling on the river.
Having trouble with the meaning of 'prior', are you?
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years... 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 (g) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
That's the current law; as noted above the earlier law required 10 years residency, at least 5 years after age 14, prior to the birth.
But I doubt you really care.
Reading your article, it reads like he is a victim of a bureaucratic nightmare. He has been told, repeatedly, by ill-informed US cogs, the wrong information. And while I agree that this is ridiculous, I also agree with another poster that this will be the first of many, many, stories to convince us how horrible these poor immigrant kids have it.
-He has a British passport.
Kingdon applied for a U.S. passport and was asked to supply additional paperwork regarding his mother’s residence history.
When Kingdon explained the urgency of needing a passport, he was told he was a U.S. citizen, but that more paperwork was needed.
He was told he could get a British passport, since he was born there.
-He’s worked in the US illegally.
“The lady told me that as long as one or more parent was a United States citizen at the time of his birth, then he is a United States citizen,” she said. “She argued with me that he was definitely a citizen and there was no question.”
Grant applied for a Social Security card for Kingdon and received it on April 29, 1979. She also obtained health and dental insurance for Kingdon.
-He has a criminal history and lied about it on his immigration paperwork.
Kingdon made the trip, and on June 15, was stopped at the airport when he tried to come back home. His ESTA had been revoked.
One of the questions on the ESTA application was, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime involving major property or government property damage?”
In 1997, Kingdon had been convicted of a misdemeanor offense for receiving stolen property.
...Kingdon said he did not think the misdemeanor was considered “criminal,” and therefore answered “no.”
Granted, I will give this one... not matter how much of a stretch.
-He abandoned his citizenship application by leaving the country without filing an I-131.
Concerned about what would happen to him when he travelled again, he asked the official if he would face any problems travelling with the ESTA. Kingdon was told he would be fine.
At his appointment for the visa, he was told that, because he has a residence in the U.S., that means he wishes to live there permanently and therefore he cannot be given a non-immigrant visa,...
I have traveled EXTENSIVELY for IBM as part of their global consulting business (half a million miles on one carrier alone). EVERY single time I have left the US I have had to provide a passport to either get my tickets or check in for electronic tickets.
So how did he leave without provide a passport on his flight TO the UK?
Like Obama.
So what are you trying to say here? It seems to me that if he were really a U.S. citizen, without a bunch of somebody-said-this and he-was-told-that nonsense, then he would have a U.S. passport and there wouldn’t be a problem.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
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 the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
There is no "prior to" in the section (g)s I have read. The law does say "acquires citizenship at birth" if those circumstances are met. My question has been all along if the mother and son moved back to the US when the son was age three, and both stayed, could the second five year residency be met after moving back to the US and citizenship recognized?
For that matter, 0’s agent advertised 0 as being “born in Kenya.”
You seem really certain.
I am not certain about anything other than his mother did not leave the country. If you can prove she ever left the country then you have a point. But then you have to tell me why a pregnant 17 year old takes a 30 hour plane ride to Kenya in 1961.
I agree we may not know where Obama was born. But we know his mother never left the country.
Rule Number One when dealing with bureaucrats. Unless they hold delegated authority, you can’t rely on what they tell you. They can be mistaken, or they can by lying, and you have no recourse if you rely on what they said.
I don’t do immigration law, although I do get to hear war stories from some immigration lawyers. One of their best sources of income is folks that have tried to do things on their own. Some problems they can fix, some they might be able to fix with the right judge and the right government lawyer, and some they can’t fix.
As I understand it, a criminal record is something that they may be able to work around if 1)it doesn’t involve moral turpitude (and no, the government doesn’t use a common sense definition) and 2) they disclosed it on the application. Here, non-disclosure may be a bigger problem for him than the nature of the crime itself.
And not filing for advance parole (I-131) while in the US can result in what happened here - you can’t get back in.
At every step where he had a choice to make, he made the wrong one. He should have paid an immigration lawyer on the front end. At this point, he might have an easier time of it getting Polish citizenship.
One citation was the current US Code, the other was the original law. The US Code cited is the law TODAY, and is the original law plus the aggregated changes to the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.