Posted on 06/21/2020 7:04:09 AM PDT by Salman
SILVER SPRING, Md. (AP) — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the State Department must recognize that the daughter of a gay couple in Maryland has been a U.S. citizen since her birth in Canada via a surrogate last year.
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang rejected the State Department’s position that the child was born out of wedlock because one of her married parents is not her biological parent.
The girl’s parents, Roee Kiviti and Adiel Kiviti, sued after the State Department denied her application for a U.S. passport. The couple argued that their equal protection rights were violated by a State Department policy requiring that both parents be biologically related to a child in order to consider that the child was born in wedlock.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Natural born citizen means born here of citizen parents.
That is simply false.
Anyone born here of foreign parents inherit the foreign nationality of their parent(s).
Divided citizenship, loyalties and allegiances were PRECISELY what the founders were excluding.
They are not NATURALLY Americans.
Your screen name should be falsehoodpusher.
Anyone born here of foreign parents inherit the foreign nationality of their parent(s).
Divided citizenship, loyalties and allegiances were PRECISELY what the founders were excluding.
They are not NATURALLY Americans.
Agreed.
Think about the implications of what you're saying.
Each country decides who their citizens are.
Cuba could say that as of today every person born in the US is a Cuban citizen at birth and by your logic people born from that point forward wouldn't be eligible to be President.
We don't control other countries' citizenship policies so we would be fools to make eligibility dependent upon them.
Why else would the US Senate need ‘resolve’ https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text joke is on you ... bunch of scribes.
Look who was hiding in plain sight ... why that fraud Obama ... Hillry who then attempted to oust the candidacy of Brack, over eligibility...
Natural born citizens are born of citizen parents, they are naturally Americans because they can’t be anything else.
Foreigners give birth to foreigners, same as Ted Cruz has a claim to US citizenship even though born in Canada.
He is Cuban from his father, Canadian by birth and got US citizenship through his mother, but is not a natural born citizen.
We should see his file so we know when and how he got it.
So a couple adopted a baby born in Canada. The way I interpreted the law is if a child is born in another country, that baby is born with the citizenship of that country. However, say the parents or birth mother was in that country on US gov’t assignment, then the baby is given US citizenship at birth. (Sometimes dual citizenship too).
But, I’m not seeing how this baby meets that criteria.
“The State Department determined that Kessem Kiviti isn’t a U.S. citizen because Adiel, the only parent with a biological connection to her, hadn’t lived in the U.S. long enough to meet a five-year residency requirement under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, according to the couple’s lawsuit. But the five-year requirement is not meant to be applied to the children of married U.S. citizens, the couple’s lawyers maintained.
Adiel moved to the U.S. in May 2015 and became a U.S. citizen in January 2019. Roee has lived in the U.S. since 1982 and became a U.S. citizen in 2001.”
That's where you're wrong. They could easily be citizens of another country as well. I'ts up to that country.
China could say every fifth child born in the US is a Chinese citizen and there's nothing we could do about it.
Regardless, unless any of them were on US govt assignment, I thought a child inherited the citizenship of the birth country. The parents woukd need to file naturalization papers for the baby.
Ted Cruz, Harvard Law School graduate knew full well he was NOT nor would he ever be a ‘natural born’ US citizen... He sunk his own credibility from the get go. That ‘con’ job will follow him the rest of his life, given , his claim to follow the original intent of our Constitution.
I refer you to Clay Blair’s excellent study of the Korean War, “The Forgotten War”, page 146. I quote LTC Mike Michaelis, who had just been given command of the US Army’s 27th Wolfhound Regiment, and was ordered to immediately deploy from Japan to Korea in July of 1950. “We’d just had our first child-a daughter. The only thing I had time to do was rush to the American Consulate with my wife and get our daughter certified so that SHE WOULDN’T BE A JAPANESE CITIZEN. I put twenty-five dollars, a razor, and tooth brush in my pocket and took off.” His daughter was born in the US Army hospital on Honshu.
Japan had regained it’s sovereignty at that time, and it’s citizenship laws were in effect. Japanese citizenship law held that ANYONE born on Japanese soil was a Japanese citizen. However, the US and Japan had concluded Status of Forces Agreements concerning the children born to US military personnel on Japanese soil. US military bases were LEASED from the Japanese government to the US for use as bases. They were still considered to be Japanese soil. If they were US soil, then the child of a pregnant Japanese worker delivering on a US base would be a 14th amendment citizen, just as if she had delivered in the US Embassy, which is US soil. With the SOFA agreement in place at that time, the Japanese citizenship of their daughter was waived, and the child would be exclusively a US citizen, (not natural born, but by US immigration and naturalization statutes extant at the time,(in the manner of Ted Cruz) Without the SOFA requisite paperwork, Michaelis’s daughter would have been a Japanese citizen at her birth, by JAPANESE law.
Both Michaelis AND his wife were natural born US citizens, serving their country overseas. Despite this, the location of their daughter’s birth makes her not even a 14th amendment citizen, but a statute citizen via the existing US Immigration and Naturalization laws.
I don’t like this reality, I don’t think that it is fair, but I did not write Article II. Children born overseas to parents serving overseas are NOT NBC’s
I recall another instance of a shot down Tuskegee Fighter pilot (I think it was from Lt. Col. Alexander Jefferson’s account “Red Tail Captured, Red Tail Free,” but I am not sure) who was interrogated by a German Oberleutnant speaking perfectly accented US English in the Stalag where he was being held.
The airman asked the German officer why he spoke such good English. He explained that he had been brought to the US by his parents when he was 10 years old. He was interned as an enemy alien by the 3rd Reich while visiting Germany by Adolph Hitler’s Declaration of war on the US on Dec 11 1941.
After a brief internment, he said that he had been drafted into the German Army under the German citizenship laws at the time as a VOLKSDEUTSCHE citizen. He fought on the Eastern Front, was wounded and transferred to the Western Front and fought against the Allies in Italy, including US troops. Wounded again, he was sent to the Stalag as an interrogator.
After the war, a charge of treason was considered against him. But the charges were dropped when it was determined that the Germans did have the right to conscript him as a natural born German citizen, under THEIR laws, and that he was a lawful enemy combatant.
Yes, circumstances can certainly dictate when you are subject to a foreign power.
Accordingly, the framers wanted to minimize (not guarantee) the likelihood of undue foreign influence upon the office of POTUS, particularly from a father owing an allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
I am not claiming that my argument is definitive, but I truly would like to see it adjudicated rather than being ignored, or ridiculed.
I was born in Germany, to two US citizens ... I do NOT have a US birth certificate ... meaning I was NOT born on US soil ... I am not, nor will I ever be a ‘natural born’ US citizen... There was a reason why our founding fathers specifically required a president to be a ‘natural born’ US citizen .... there is NO other allegiance to any other nation ... or a claim coming from any other nation.
It seems lost on people that ‘we the people’ are government ... US citizen parents who want to bequeath to their children ‘natural born’ US citizenship ought to be birthing those children on US soil.
Damn, here is another twisted, bad decision by an Obama appointed Judge, Theodore Chuang. Obama did his best in selecting the bottom of the barrel to ruin decent courts. These flaky decisions are almost universally Obama appointees. Ocasionally, we get a Clinton appointee with a bad decision but not like with Obama appointees.
Anyone born here of foreign parents inherit the foreign nationality of their parent(s).Divided citizenship, loyalties and allegiances were PRECISELY what the founders were excluding.
Legal nonsense. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
But nothing would prevent the US from also granting her full citizenship.
...particularly from a father owing an allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
How many people living here when the Constitution was drafted do you think had at least one foreign born parent?
Do you really think the framers meant to exclude them all from eligibility?
The allegiance the framers worried about was something that is freely given, not something inherited at birth.
There's a reason we pledge allegiance and don't just show our birth certificates.
Playing the scribe again. Nobody but US citizen parents can bequeath ‘natural born’ US citizenship to anyone ... but they have to do it on US soil...
Stop playing games with our Constitution. We the people are government!!!!
Regardless, unless any of them were on US govt assignment, I thought a child inherited the citizenship of the birth country. The parents woukd need to file naturalization papers for the baby.
Not true. I linked and quoted the applicable U.S. law. That the child may inherit another citizenship at birth has no effect on U.S. citizenship status. Otherwise, the Duchy of Grand Fenwick could bestow citizenship upon all persons born in the United States except for muslims and the only people eligible to run for president would be muslims.
The U.S. citizenship of a child born outside the territory of the United States is determined by whatever the Federal law says at the time of birth.
I know of no law stating that being on government assignment affects birth citizenship. For example, a military base overseas is not U.S. territory. Children born on an overseas base to service members are not citizens by way of the 14th Amendment but as covered by Federal law. It is the same law that applies to a tourist overseas. It does matter if a parent is an accredited diplomat.
Natural born means born here. Period.
It means being born a U.S. citizen; not necessarily born here.
I have NO DOUBT whatsoever, that the reason for the natural born citizen requirement was to minimize the possibility of undue foreign influence upon the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father who might owe allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
The SCOTUS, members of the founding generation, quoted in it’s 1814 Venus Merchantman decision the entire 212th paragraph from Emmerich De Vatels Law of Nations that defined a natural born citizen as having two citizen parents and born on the soil of the nation to define an NBC for purposes of that decision.
The founders were patriarchs, no matter how offensive that term may be to many current sensibilities. They believed that the citizenship of the child followed that of the father. I believe that only an Article V constitutional amendment can redefine that meaning.
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.