Replies

I don't understand the origins of the State Dept's policy for this case.

Because the State Department initially ruled her as "not a citizen". She's biologically the kid of a US citizen, so I don't see how they justified that correctly.

U.S. District Judge Michael Brown wrote in an order issued Thursday that the girl is not required to be biologically related to both of her U.S. citizen parents to be eligible for citizenship.

This is obviously incorrect. First, in this case, the girl IS biologically related to one of the parents. Second, if she wasn't, then she shouldn't be a citizen, so this statement is wrong both on an underlying fact, and the judge's conclusion. If the judge is correct, then anybody overseas can find two random Americans and have them claim any kids to make them US citizens.

And because Gregg, the biological parent, hadn’t lived in the U.S. for five years prior to Simone’s birth, the State Department determined Simone was not a U.S. citizen.
...
while Gregg was born in London to a U.S. citizen mother and British father and was raised in London with dual citizenship.

I don't get this part. Gregg had citizenship from birth, so what's with the five year requirement? He's a citizen, so his biological kids should be citizens too. But even without all this, there's no question the kid is eligible for citizenship. The only possible question is whether it would be automatic or require naturalization. And since Dad's a citizen, it should be automatic.

I don’t get this part. Gregg had citizenship from birth, so what’s with the five year requirement?

There are still some old school immigration rules on the books. I believe the kid has to spend time in the US before age 25 (?) or the child risks losing citizenship.