Posted on 08/31/2020 3:30:02 PM PDT by devane617
The headline say’s:
Judge: Gay couple’s child born in England is a US citizen.
Same sex marriages can’t have kids (as in birthing), it’s physically impossible. That was my point.
The headline is wrong. It should have stated: Judge: Gay couple’s adopted child born via surrogate Mom in England is US citizen.
Apples and Oranges thing.. it’s a grammar issue.
The biological father is a US citizen.
They are married. Not that it matters.
"And then there’s that pesky part, where the biological parent has to have lived in the U.S. for five years prior to the birth. Why do we have legislatures if the laws they make are just going to be ignored?"
Actually the law doesn't say the parent has to live in the US for five years. That's just a statement being made about this particular parent.
According to the law one parent (and one of them is the biological father) would be able to pass citizenship to this child. It seems like a no-brainer. I don't know what the State Department was reasoning.
I didn’t see where the fertilization took place.
So what this means is:
Anyone who is currently a citizen that creates a contract to have a child born FOR them in any country on planet Earth will have a new little citizen...who has nothing to do with them except they pre-purchased it.
Can see a brisk business in this. Millions and millions. Undoubtedly based on the foreign parents paying the citizens for the contract, not the other way around. Eventually the little slave will be able to get them here, because we know another judge will rule that it’s his/her/its right.
Why do we have legislatures if the laws they make are just going to be ignored?
When all else fails, consult the actual law. Is the father a U.S. citizen? Prior to the birth of the child, was the father 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? If yes to both, the child was born a U.S. citizen, pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 1401.
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2018/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-iii/part-i/sec-1401/
2018 US Code
Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality
Chapter 12 - Immigration and Nationality
Subchapter III - Nationality and Naturalization
Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
Sec. 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth8 U.S.C. § 1401 (2018)
§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
Our next president.
Right - but not a single Democrat kicked about him...
We both know, from the article, that one of the gay men is the biological father, and the other has no biological connection to the child. But they are still the parents. Now we may both agree on the argument that gay men should not be allowed to adopt children, but that is another issue altogether.
Personally I believe the judge is wrong, on 2 counts. The biological father is the son of an American woman and a British father who had not lived in the U.S. for the previous 5 years, and in addition he had dual citizenship. The child had to be naturalized, in my opinion. But my opinion doesn't count. The State Dept. was following what Congress had set. The judge is illegally granting citizenship that he has no authority to grant.
While it is obvious, that two same sexed individuals are incapable of creating a new life, nothing in the article nor the headline itself makes the argument that both were the biological parents of this child. That is my point, and I didn't need an education on how children are created either. The article never attempted to infer that they were the sole creators of that child. It merely stated that the couple's child born in England is a U.S. citizen as riled by an activist judge. Since they are a couple and the child is lawfully recognized as their child, your argument is not even relevant. Again, because that was never even implied to be the case with this child by the article, nor the headline itself.
Are we a nation of laws? Americans seem to have no reverance for them.
Is it OK to say that a federal judge is a nitwit ? Askin ‘ for a friend .
>>A federal judge in Atlanta has ruled that the daughter of a married gay couple in Georgia who was born via surrogate in England has been an American citizen since birth
Adopted baby born in the UK is a US citizen by birth?
Baby has at least dual citizenship if not claims to even more nationalities.
There are Freepers who proclaim that even foreign born citizens can retain their previous citizenships and become naturalized US “dual citizens”.
This country is the global land without borders and anyone can claim to be of here, voting here and abroad and traveling on multiple passports.
Estados Stupidos.
This is all “new” interpretation of law and bunk.
>>If it were a straight couple and a baby genetically theirs delivered through a surrogate, the baby would be a US citizen and no need for a lawsuit.
Would the fathers (even though only one is genetic) need to be US citizens for the baby to be a US citizen by birth (even though birthed by a non-US mother in a foreign land)? What if the non-sperm donating “father” is the only US citizen in this equation?
What if both fathers (even though only one is genetic) are foreign nationals and the baby is birthed in a foreign land to a US citizen surrogate on foreign soil?
What if both fathers (even though only one is genetic) are foreign nationals and the baby is birthed on US soil by a foreign national surrogate (while vacationing here legally or illegally?
What if only the sperm donor (neither of the men) is a US citizen and the “fathers” and the surrogate mother are non-US citizens and the baby is birthed in a foreign country?
So many claims to US citizenship but many of these are quite farcical. And most assuredly they will tell us of all of the other wonderful nations that the baby can call home as well.
Willful destruction of language, law, and national sovereign identity.
They could have chosen a baby born here.
I think it’s like the lesbians who decided to get divorced in Texas as a way to get the state to “recognize” same sex marriage when their marriage was not already recognized by the state.
Is the egg from one of the legally joined people? if not then the child cannot be an American citizen.
inside the woman
Long winded...
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.