The Briefing Room
General Category => Immigration/Border => Topic started by: corbe on August 28, 2019, 09:45:08 pm
-
Trump officials say children of US service members overseas will not get automatic citizenship
By Morgan Chalfant and Rafael Bernal - 08/28/19 04:26 PM EDT
The Trump administration said Wednesday that the children of certain U.S. military members and government employees working overseas will no longer automatically be considered United States citizens.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy on Wednesday rescinding previous guidance stating that children of U.S. service members and other government officials abroad are considered “residing in the United States†and automatically given citizenship under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The new rule will not apply to children who acquire citizenship at birth or while residing in the United States, according to the guidance. That includes children born abroad to U.S. citizens who have resided in the United States at some point in the past five years.
<..snip..>
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/459190-trump-officials-say-children-of-us-service-members-overseas-will-not (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/459190-trump-officials-say-children-of-us-service-members-overseas-will-not)
-
WOW....this isn't gonna go over very well with the military that is stationed overseas.
-
:chairbang: Why is anything from The Hill trusted without being fact-checked? :chairbang:
USCIS Policy Manual Update (https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/uscis-policy-manual-update)
Who This Policy Update Does Not Affect
This policy does not affect children born outside the United States who were citizens at birth or who have already acquired citizenship, including children who:
* Were born to two U.S. citizen parents, at least one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions before the child’s birth;
* Were born to married parents, one of whom is a U.S. citizen and one a foreign national, if the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or one of its outlying possessions for at least five years, at least two of which were after they turned 14 years old;
* Were born to unmarried parents, one of whom is a U.S. citizen and one a foreign national, if the U.S. citizen parent meets the requirements listed in INA 309;
* Are otherwise eligible to receive a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) or a Certificate of Citizenship documenting U.S. citizenship acquired at birth; or
* Are residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of their U.S. citizen parent after being lawfully admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence.
22222frying pan 22222frying pan 22222frying pan 22222frying pan 22222frying pan
-
:chairbang: Why is anything from The Hill trusted without being fact-checked? :chairbang:
USCIS Policy Manual Update (https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/uscis-policy-manual-update)
22222frying pan 22222frying pan 22222frying pan 22222frying pan 22222frying pan
I appreciate that @PeteS in CA. I heard this on the radio yesterday, and having one active duty son with a family, I wondered if it was accurate or not.
-
And, it looks The Hill updated their story:
USCIS issued a clarification to the rule later Wednesday, explaining that the new rule would only affect three categories of people: Children of non-U.S. citizens adopted by U.S. citizen government employees or service members; children of non-U.S. citizen government employees or service members who were naturalized after the child's birth; and children of U.S. citizens who do not meet residency requirements.
-
:chairbang: Why is anything from The Hill trusted without being fact-checked? :chairbang:
USCIS Policy Manual Update (https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/uscis-policy-manual-update)
22222frying pan 22222frying pan 22222frying pan 22222frying pan 22222frying pan
You took the words right off my keyboard @PeterS ... and the link! :beer:
-
WOW....this isn't gonna go over very well with the military that is stationed overseas.
You need to read this @mystery-ak https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/uscis-policy-manual-update (https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/uscis-policy-manual-update)
You'll understand what's going on and feel better.
-
I think it would be reasonable how The Hill's writers got their original story almost diametrically wrong. Their headline and first sentence pretty much empower cynicism: "Trump officials say ..."; The Trump administration said .... Specifically, the first word of the headline, and the second word of the story.
As the saying goes, a lie has circled the world before the truth gets its boots on. The Hill has some honest and decent writers, but the OP article suggests to me that Morgan Chalfant and Rafael Bernal are not among them.
-
I heard this would pertain only to a very small group of children. I can find the exception list later. Very few.
But it reads like hell in the press.
-
WOW....this isn't gonna go over very well with the military that is stationed overseas.
@mystery-ak
@TomSea
I read the whole rule:
The title is not true, except for a US military person who adopts a child who was born in the overseas country where the service person is. That child, now, is not a US citizen.
Nothing has changed about citizenship of a US military male person fathering a child overseas or any female military person having a child overseas. These children are still automatic citizens of the US no matter where the military person is in service of the US. The base the military are assigned to overseas is considered the United States and any military person stationed there who has a child born there, has born that child in the United States, an automatic citizen.
-
Like foster children with one non-American parent and both have never been in the US.
-
It's alarming that a system can't even be tweaked some without it coming out looking like this did to many.
I'm sure the immigration system can be tweaked to make it better and may abuses in the system less likely. We should want that.
-
It's alarming that a system can't even be tweaked some without it coming out looking like this did to many.
...
Until the MSM exercises minimal diligence in fact-checking stories useful to Hate-Trump narratives, these kinds of "errors" - due to malice or due to confirmation bias - will continue to abound.
-
TomSea wrote:
"But it reads like hell in the press..."
OF COURSE it does.
That's how IT'S INTENDED "to read".
Because... it's a LIE.
The epitome of "fake news".