So in our case, the kids meet (i) and (ii), but the problem is that (B) refers to an adopted child - and I assume an adopted child only. It seems funny that an adopted child should get a better deal than a natural child, but there could be a logic to it. Any thoughts?
David Rosenbaum
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
It all is going to depend upon US law relating to a child obtaining citizenship "automatically." If the conditions were met, then the children would have been US citizens at birth. If not, then the children became US citizens when they met the criteria. A quick search on the internet found the following information from a US Embassy: Physical Presence
This is the actual time when the parent was physically within the borders of the United States. This means that any travel outside the United States, including vacation, should be excluded. Maintaining a residence in the U.S. does not constitute physical presence. Please submit old passports if available, as evidence. If unavailable, other evidence may be required. Note: Any periods of time spent overseas with the United States Military/Government or qualifying international organization (such as the United Nations) may be computed as physical presence in the United States for transmission of citizenship purposes. Time spent as a dependent of such person may also be computed as physical presence. Military records or other proof may be requested. Children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents may have a claim to U.S. citizenship. The following is a brief description of the various circumstances under which a child born abroad acquires American citizenship. Child born in wedlock to two U.S. citizens: A child born outside of the United States or its outlying possessions to two U.S. citizen parents is entitled to citizenship, provided one of the parents had, prior to the birth of the child, been resident in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. (No specific period of time is required.) Child born in wedlock to one U.S. citizen parent and one non U.S. citizen parent on or after November 14, 1986: A child born outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent may be entitled to citizenship providing the U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for five years, at least two years of which were after s/he reached the age of fourteen. This period of physical presence must have taken place prior to the birth of the child. Child born in wedlock to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. Citizen parent between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986: A child born outside of the United States to one U.S. Citizen parent and one non-U.S. Citizen parent, may be entitled to citizenship providing the U.S. Citizen parent had, prior to the birth of the child, been physically present in the United States for a period of ten years, at least five years of which were after s/he reached the age of fourteen. Child born out of wedlock to a U.S. Citizen mother: A child born outside of the United States and out of wedlock to a U.S. Citizen mother is entitled to U.S. citizenship providing the U.S. Citizen mother had been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least one year at some time prior to the birth of her child. (NOTE: The U.S. citizen mother must have lived continuously for 1 year IN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS OUTLYING POSSESSIONS. Periods spent overseas with the U.S. government/military or as a government/military dependent, may NOT be computed as physical presence in the U.S.). Child born out of wedlock to a U.S. Citizen father: A child born outside of the United States to an U.S. Citizen father where there is no marriage to the non-American mother is entitled to U.S. Citizenship providing the American citizen father had been physically present in the United States for the period of time as specified in previous paragraphs for children born in wedlock to one U.S. Citizen and one non-U.S. Citizen parent, either before or after November 14,
1986; and * the alien mother completes an "Affidavit to establish paternity of child" at this office before a consular officer; and
The heading says "adopted child" but the text says "any child." Ignore the heading, believe the text. Stu
The children may (or may not) have been US citizens since birth, and what the parents did may (or may not) simply have been a process of documenting the fact that the kids had been US citizens all along. For more precise detail on US citizenship law, you need to go to the Immigration and Nationality Act (which is codified in Title 8 of the US Code -- though the section numbers in the original Act are not the same as the section numbers in
8 USC).Actually, if both parents of a non-US-born child are US citizens (and the parent are married to each other), the child is a US citizen "at birth", provided either parent had =ever= lived in the US for =any= length of time. INA
301(c); 8 USC 1401(c). If only one parent of a non-US-born child is a US citizen, then the rules are more complicated, involving a certain minimum time period during which the American parent must have been physically in the US before the child's birth. Also, the rules have changed from time to time, and you need to be cognizant of the law as it stood at the time of the child's birth. The last significant change of this sort took place on 14 Nov. 1986.Because the child was in fact a US citizen at birth. The process of registering the child with US consular officials abroad (or with State Dept. officials in the US later on) documents the fact of the child's citizenship status, but this registration is NOT a conferral of citizenship; that happened automatically when the child was born. (This also means, BTW, that a non-US-born child of an American parent or parent may arguably qualify as "natural born" and be eligible to become President one day -- but that's another story.)
I'm not sure that's true. It would depend on the circumstances; the children might have had US citizenship since birth, or they might have acquired it (non-retrospectively) under the terms of a law such as the Child Citizenship Act of 2000.
That's a gross overgeneralization involving the citizenship laws of essentially every country in the world.
Indeed. As I said, check the Immigration and Nationality Act. Your starting point for citizenship at birth would be sections 301 et seq. of the INA (8 USC 1401 et seq.). Note, of course, that a child born outside the US to an American parent or parents may very possibly be a citizen, not only of the US, but also of the country of birth and/or the country of the non-American parent. Since each country defines citizenship according to its own laws -- generally without regard for the laws of other countries -- it's quite possible that a child could be born with two or more citizenships. From the point of view of US law, though, the other citizenships are irrelevant (just as the child's US citizenship may be irrelevant from the POV of another country's laws). Rich Wales snipped-for-privacy@richw.org
` Thanks, Stuart. But if you noticed (and I admit that my formatting was not good here), the law said "any child of a taxpayer (within the meaning of subsection (f)(1)(B))". And (f)(1)(B) refers to adopted children: "(B) Adopted child In determining whether any of the relationships specified in subparagraph (A)(i) or paragraph (4) exists, a legally adopted individual of the taxpayer, or an individual who is lawfully placed with the taxpayer for legal adoption by the taxpayer, shall be treated as a child of such individual by blood." So, as I see it, the text of the law is actually in agreement with the heading. David
Wow. That was an in-depth answer! Thanks.
A couple of po Here, however, in the said years, the children were not US citizens, though I guess they could have received citizenship based on the US parent. You replied:
"I'm not sure that's true. It would depend on the circumstances; the children might have had US citizenship since birth, or they might have acquired it (non-retrospectively) under the terms of a law such as the Child Citizenship Act of 2000." Actually, what I meant was that since eventually they did get citizenship, they could have received citizenship in those years using the same rules they eventually did actually use to attain citizenship. But I agree that that does not determine whether they were eligible. As to your point about them being dual citizens: indeed, they are dual citizens. And as you mentioned, that's irrelevant for this issue. I guess I'll have to look at the Immigration and Nationality Act. Though it seems to me that's more for an immigration lawyer. David
I suppose they did it that way because it was unnecessary to refer to natural children. If the citizen parent satisfies
8 USC §1401(g), the child was a citizen at birth. Section 1401(g) says that a person is a citizen at birth if he is"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:..."
Stu
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.