Posted on 11/28/2023 7:38:54 AM PST by 11th_VA
A 61-year-old Virginia doctor who was born in the US has been stripped of his citizenship - all because of his late father's status as an Iranian diplomat at the time of his birth.
Siavash Sobhani became stateless when he tried to renew his passport in June this year - with officials telling him that he never should have been granted American citizenship in 1960, according to the Washington Post.
The State Department informed him that babies born in the US to parents with diplomatic immunity - which his father enjoyed as an Iranian Embassy employee at the time - shouldn't automatically acquire citizenship.
Typically, all babies born in the US are given citizenship.
The State Department's move comes despite Sobhani being a respected doctor, sporting an impressive roster of 3,000 active patients after gaining degrees from George Washington University, Boston College and Georgetown Medical School.
He's lived in the US - Virginia and DC - for his entire life, apart from a small portion of his childhood when his family relocated to Turkey. His brother Rob Sobhani, 63, even ran for Senate in Maryland in 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Born in December? That wouldn’t make him 62 until next month...
If they have no other connection to the United States except having been born here (i.e., neither parent was or became a U.S. citizen during their childhood) the citizenship they receive, if they receive any citizenship at all, can only be considered to have come to them via naturalization.
“I wonder if his parents retracted his US citizenship even though he was born here.”
Children of accredited diplomats serving in the United States have NEVER been accorded citizenship based on being born in the US.
The 14th Amendment has TWO requirements: (1) Born or naturalized in the United States, and (2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Children of accredited diplomats, born in the US during the time their parents were accredited diplomats, have never come within the 14th Amendment because they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They have diplomatic immunity.
Could be birth citizenship?
He was stripped, because he has been regarded as an American until this latest passport renewal. He has voted for POTUS, and you can’t do that if you’re not a citizen of the US.
Yes, it’s explicit. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is right there in the text. Children of diplomats, during the time of the parents’ accreditation, are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
That is ridiculous. No wonder wealthy pregnant Chinese women come to US for holiday.
Pursuant to an uniform Rule of Naturalization?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
I know a family where the kids were all born in the USA years before their foreign-born father became a diplomat. I don’t think their citizenship was revoked.
The United States should not be in the business of sifting through a foreign government’s diplomatic payroll records, or the timing of hirings, firings, or resignations, to determine if a given child born in the U.S. to two foreigners possesses or does not possess irrevocable U.S. citizenship.
Not explicit under 14A.
Diplomats (and their families) are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the states. They enjoy ‘diplomatic immunity’. They cannot be tried for any crime they might commit. We can only tell them to leave.
I understand all that. The question I have is how did they grant him citizenship status in 1960? He's only 61. He'd have to have been 61 in 2021 for that to work.
If he was born in 1960, he'd have to be 63 by the end of this year if he isn't already. If he were born on 1/1/60, he'd already be 63 and almost 64. If he was born on 12/31/60, he'd be 62, and almost 63. He can't be 61 in either of these cases or for any of the dates in between.
Neither are the children born here of foreign nationals. It was well-known when the 14th was written that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant a citizen of. That was debated and there is supporting documentation out there clarifying that. Why else put it there? Would it not already be understood that visitors (legal or otherwise) would be subject to our rules and laws? Why, then, would that statement be necessary? It was to separate status as a citizen from non-citizen.
1960 was 63 years ago...
December 1960 was 62 years 11 months ago.
Exactly
This is all about nothing. He can just quickly apply for naturalization. He's already met all the requirements and just needs to file the paperwork. No one is going to remove him.
Well, that's not what the law says.
We've been over this before. There is plenty of law, case law, and Supreme Court opinions that disagree with you. Damned if I'm going to reinvent the wheel AGAIN on this. Do some REAL research, I'm not going to do it for you.
avoid
Exactly right. Many people have trouble reading English. Some of those people post here at FR.
Born OR Naturalized. He was BORN in the United States, so he doesn't need to be naturalized. He's a citizen, (unless renounced) period.
Every time I see a "Well, but then if his parents weren't citizens" post I feel like demanding an IQ test for FR participation.
I got into an argument with some blockhead who insisted that income tax was illegal. He demanded I show him the law that allowed income tax. When I pointed to the statute (Title 26) that allows income tax, he responded "Well.... Statutes aren't laws!"
My response got me banned from the site.
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.