Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

US Immigration Policy - Travel advisory: don't go to the South if you're Hispanic/Latino

1474850525358

Posts

  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It's worse than that

    The argument is that the Constitution and all protection of law only applies to people they decide are US citizens.

    Speaking of that:



    So, if you're in the army, deployed overseas and have your family with you, and your wife has a kid... that kid is essentially a citizen of nowhere?

    Jus Sanguinis still applies. Of course, if you were 18 when you joined and got shipped overseas real quick and your wife was, say, a foreign national you met while deployed, well then your kid isn't a US citizen.

    GOP being very forward thinking in Birther-ing the presidential candidates in 40 years.

    Constitution only contains jus soli, to be clear. Jus sanguinis is statutory... which... is still probably something that contradicts this, given this administration.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    Elldren
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic regular Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It's worse than that

    The argument is that the Constitution and all protection of law only applies to people they decide are US citizens.

    Speaking of that:



    So, if you're in the army, deployed overseas and have your family with you, and your wife has a kid... that kid is essentially a citizen of nowhere?

    Jus Sanguinis still applies. Of course, if you were 18 when you joined and got shipped overseas real quick and your wife was, say, a foreign national you met while deployed, well then your kid isn't a US citizen.

    GOP being very forward thinking in Birther-ing the presidential candidates in 40 years.

    Constitution only contains jus soli, to be clear. Jus sanguinis is statutory... which... is still probably something that contradicts this, given this administration.

    It gets real complicated with clauses based on if it is the mother or father and residency requirements after certain age thresholds. The scenario is unlikely to come up but we are big country with lots of folks serving it overseas. Seems like a great way to let some bureaucrat/racist say "It's a tragedy but my hands are tied" in response to a kid whose parents chose to serve their country.

    FencingsaxSpoitlonelyahavaMan in the Mists
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It's worse than that

    The argument is that the Constitution and all protection of law only applies to people they decide are US citizens.

    Speaking of that:



    My hope is that a future Democrat president issues instruction to USCIS telling them to recognize the citizenship of people born abroad who are children of US citizens. Not to grant them citizenship, but to recognize the citizenship that they already actually held.

    I sometimes post pretty pictures to twitter: https://twitter.com/matthewandworld
    Gnome-InterruptusCantidoMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxlonelyahavaMan in the Mists
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor regular Registered User regular
    edited August 28
    Sleep wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It's worse than that

    The argument is that the Constitution and all protection of law only applies to people they decide are US citizens.

    Speaking of that:



    So, if you're in the army, deployed overseas and have your family with you, and your wife has a kid... that kid is essentially a citizen of nowhere?

    Jus Sanguinis still applies. Of course, if you were 18 when you joined and got shipped overseas real quick and your wife was, say, a foreign national you met while deployed, well then your kid isn't a US citizen.

    Per the memo, it sounds* like your kid would still be a citizen because YOU had established residency. Your child would, however, need to establish residency before giving birth to your grandchild.

    *Sounds like, not sure. Might also be as you say, but they spell out the grandkid thing.

    Edit 2: Read some analysis that seems to confirm your kid is SOL as stated. The next line is still true:

    The focus on such niche scenarios makes it seem even more insidious.
    GOP being very forward thinking in Birther-ing the presidential candidates in 40 years.

    Very forward.

    Edit:. Example given

    U.S. Citizens who were Born, But Did Not Reside, in the United States A U.S. citizen may have automatically acquired U.S. citizenship based on birth in the United States,7 but never actually resided in the United States. This U.S. citizen will not have established residence in the United States, and may be unable to transmit U.S. citizenship to his or her own children.

    For example, if the U.S. citizen, still having never resided in the United States, subsequently marries another U.S. citizen who never resided in the United States, and they give birth to a child outside the United States, the child will not acquire citizenship at birth under INA 301(c) because neither U.S. citizen parent can show the requisite residence in the United States. However, if the U.S. citizen parent had returned to the United States after his or her birth and established residence before giving birth to the child outside the United States, then he or she may be able to meet the residence requirement based on that period of residence and transmit U.S. citizenship to his or her children.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It's worse than that

    The argument is that the Constitution and all protection of law only applies to people they decide are US citizens.

    Speaking of that:



    So, if you're in the army, deployed overseas and have your family with you, and your wife has a kid... that kid is essentially a citizen of nowhere?

    Trump REALLY hates McCain.

    ZibblsnrtCelestialBadgerMartini_PhilosopherMrMonroeElvenshaeMan in the MistsZonugalbrynhrtmn
  • BursarBursar Hee Noooo! Registered User regular
    It seems very inconsistent for a president who was loudly pushing for starting a Mars colony soon to then begin pushing to exclude the possible descendents of that colony from citizenship.

    They really do hate every type of alien!

    GNU Terry Pratchett
    3DS FC: 0810-0331-1324 | PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan | Battle.net: FallenIdle#1970
    SleepRickRude
  • mcdermottmcdermott regular Registered User regular
    edited August 28
    For example, if the U.S. citizen, still having never resided in the United States, subsequently marries another U.S. citizen who never resided in the United States, and they give birth to a child outside the United States, the child will not acquire citizenship at birth under INA 301(c) because neither U.S. citizen parent can show the requisite residence in the United States.

    However, I assume that if those citizen parents do later take up residence in the US before the child turns eighteen, and the child lives with them as legal guardians, then the child can pursue automatic citizenship under some chapter or another?

    I also have to think that the group of new parents who are citizens, and *would* meet the residency requirement if military/civil service counted, but *don’t* under this policy, is pretty damn small. But as noted, multiply times hundreds of thousands of people and rare things will happen eventually.

    Edit: This mostly seems to impact the “adult citizens by birth who’ve never actually lived here” demographic. Or rather their children. And even then only in rare cases where they...have kids with a service member who *also* hasn’t lived in the US for the requisite time before joining?

    mcdermott on
    ArbitraryDescriptor
  • MorganVMorganV regular Registered User regular
    edited August 28
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It's worse than that

    The argument is that the Constitution and all protection of law only applies to people they decide are US citizens.

    Speaking of that:



    So, if you're in the army, deployed overseas and have your family with you, and your wife has a kid... that kid is essentially a citizen of nowhere?

    Trump REALLY hates McCain.

    Given his nature for being incredibly petty, could this be another attempt to shank Ted Cruz's Presidential ambitions?

    MorganV on
    CantidoCelestialBadger
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It's worse than that

    The argument is that the Constitution and all protection of law only applies to people they decide are US citizens.

    Speaking of that:



    So, if you're in the army, deployed overseas and have your family with you, and your wife has a kid... that kid is essentially a citizen of nowhere?

    Trump REALLY hates McCain.

    Given his nature for being incredibly petty, could this be another attempt to shank Ted Cruz's Presidential ambitions?

    Nah. This is most likely just a swipe at birthright citizenship. Fox News and his other political advisors have gotten him all riled up about it and he even made recent comments about ending it. I assume this is basically the thing they could actually do about the issue so Trump could have something concrete.

    Commander ZoomBlackDragon480CantidoZibblsnrtMartini_PhilosophertynicLabelSpoitFencingsaxShadowfireHappy Little MachineGnome-InterruptusElldrenMegaMekMan in the MistsZonugalemp123
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor regular Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It's worse than that

    The argument is that the Constitution and all protection of law only applies to people they decide are US citizens.

    Speaking of that:



    So, if you're in the army, deployed overseas and have your family with you, and your wife has a kid... that kid is essentially a citizen of nowhere?

    Trump REALLY hates McCain.

    Given his nature for being incredibly petty, could this be another attempt to shank Ted Cruz's Presidential ambitions?

    Nah. This is most likely just a swipe at birthright citizenship. Fox News and his other political advisors have gotten him all riled up about it and he even made recent comments about ending it. I assume this is basically the thing they could actually do about the issue so Trump could have something concrete.

    Well played, Miller. Way to single out the... *checks notes*

    military?

    That's the part I really can't get my head around.

    Kayne Red RobeAngelHedgieRickRudeShadowfireGennenalyse RuebenElldrenJaysonFourElvenshaeMegaMekMan in the MistsCalicaZonugalEinzelemp123
  • mcdermottmcdermott regular Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It's worse than that

    The argument is that the Constitution and all protection of law only applies to people they decide are US citizens.

    Speaking of that:



    So, if you're in the army, deployed overseas and have your family with you, and your wife has a kid... that kid is essentially a citizen of nowhere?

    Trump REALLY hates McCain.

    Given his nature for being incredibly petty, could this be another attempt to shank Ted Cruz's Presidential ambitions?

    Looking at the official sites, they make it very clear that naturalization laws are applied based on the law at time of birth, so nothing done today can impact Cruz.

    Elldren
  • MorganVMorganV regular Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It's worse than that

    The argument is that the Constitution and all protection of law only applies to people they decide are US citizens.

    Speaking of that:



    So, if you're in the army, deployed overseas and have your family with you, and your wife has a kid... that kid is essentially a citizen of nowhere?

    Trump REALLY hates McCain.

    Given his nature for being incredibly petty, could this be another attempt to shank Ted Cruz's Presidential ambitions?

    Looking at the official sites, they make it very clear that naturalization laws are applied based on the law at time of birth, so nothing done today can impact Cruz.

    Damn. I was really hoping it was just that petty.

    And not your standard "Miller" evil.

    RickRude
  • MillMill regular Registered User regular
    So can Trump even legally do this petty bullshit thing. If it's based on a law, couldn't someone take the US to court and argue that dip shit in chief cannot change the law on a whim, even if his fascist fucker buddy, Steve Miller insisted on it?

  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It's worse than that

    The argument is that the Constitution and all protection of law only applies to people they decide are US citizens.

    Speaking of that:


    Oh neat, immigration intersects with the Trump administration's need to shit all over our military.

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
    CelestialBadgerOrcaBlackDragon480Man in the Mists
  • JragghenJragghen regular Registered User regular
    Looks like there was a bit of clarification and this is narrower than it seems at first glance.



    My guess is that this is very specifically intended for children of immigrants who are serving in the military - service doesn't guarantee citizenship, and this now prevents their children from automatically being citizens, if I read this correctly.

    tynicElldrenStabbity Style
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Gosh damn that clarification is still fucked up.

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
    LadaiLabelSpoitFencingsaxOrcaShadowfireGennenalyse RuebenlonelyahavaBlackDragon480ElldrenBloodsheedthatassemblyguyDuke 2.0JaysonFourElvenshaeLovelyStabbity StyleTofystedethMan in the Mistsbrynhrtmnemp123
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger regular Registered User regular
    edited August 28
    Why does Trump hate the military so much? Bitterness at his cowardice in the Vietnam war?

    They’ll all vote for him anyway and beg for more humiliation.

    CelestialBadger on
    FencingsaxOrcaRickRudeAistanbrynhrtmn
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Not granting military service peoples citizenship, nor their immediate families citizenship, is really fucking awful. Like this administration is notching that treatment up past 10, but the USA has been doing it already and it's one of those gaps that stands as an example for when I say "Hey, resetting the country to 2015 doesn't mean the problems are solved."

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
    LadaiKayne Red RobeLabelFencingsaxRickRudeShadowfireGennenalyse RuebenBlackDragon480Gnome-InterruptusElldrenBloodsheedJaysonFourAlexandierStabbity StyleMan in the MistsHellerbooyemp123
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Why does Trump hate the military so much? Bitterness at his cowardice in the Vietnam war?

    They’ll all vote for him anyway and beg for more humiliation.

    He doesn't hate the military. He loves him some military parades and other assorted trappings.

    What he really doesn't, is he doesn't know a fucking thing outside of his personal bubble. He loves the idea of screwing over furriners. He doesn't think about other things that might be affected by his choices.

    Like seizing land along the border. He's just too fucking stupid to realise the knock-on effects.

  • baudattitudebaudattitude regular Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    For example, if the U.S. citizen, still having never resided in the United States, subsequently marries another U.S. citizen who never resided in the United States, and they give birth to a child outside the United States, the child will not acquire citizenship at birth under INA 301(c) because neither U.S. citizen parent can show the requisite residence in the United States.

    However, I assume that if those citizen parents do later take up residence in the US before the child turns eighteen, and the child lives with them as legal guardians, then the child can pursue automatic citizenship under some chapter or another?

    I also have to think that the group of new parents who are citizens, and *would* meet the residency requirement if military/civil service counted, but *don’t* under this policy, is pretty damn small. But as noted, multiply times hundreds of thousands of people and rare things will happen eventually.

    Edit: This mostly seems to impact the “adult citizens by birth who’ve never actually lived here” demographic. Or rather their children. And even then only in rare cases where they...have kids with a service member who *also* hasn’t lived in the US for the requisite time before joining?

    I normally don't chime in to D&D threads, but wanted to add a not-US perspective on that exact weird demographic. I am a British citizen by descent and hold a British passport, but I've never lived in the UK so I'm not considered a resident. If I have a child in any country other than the UK, I won't pass citizenship to the child. So this seems normal from my perspective, but something that would only apply to the narrowest of edge cases.

    (And no, this isn't some sort of weird Brexit thing, it's been like this for ages)

    Elldren
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger regular Registered User regular
    This is not about denying citizenship to children of military deployed abroad, but about denying them “natural born citizenship” i.e. they can never become President.

    Basically it’s a slap in the dead face of the cadaver of John McCain because he was born abroad to a military family.

    rahkeesh2000MrMonroeBlackDragon480BursarJaysonFourHarry DresdenMan in the Mistsbrynhrtmndispatch.o
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom regular Registered User regular
    The answer to the question "is Trump really so petty that _____?" is always "yes."

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    Emerlmaster999kimeCelestialBadgerTetraNitroCubaneZibblsnrtMild ConfusionFencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenMrMonroeHarry DresdenNobeardBlackDragon480ElldrenAistanDuke 2.0Mr FuzzbuttJaysonFourElvenshaeLovelyStabbity StyleelectricitylikesmeMan in the MistsZonugalbrynhrtmnemp123dispatch.o
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Why does Trump hate the military so much? Bitterness at his cowardice in the Vietnam war?

    They’ll all vote for him anyway and beg for more humiliation.

    He doesn't hate the military. He loves him some military parades and other assorted trappings.

    What he really doesn't, is he doesn't know a fucking thing outside of his personal bubble. He loves the idea of screwing over furriners. He doesn't think about other things that might be affected by his choices.

    Like seizing land along the border. He's just too fucking stupid to realise the knock-on effects.

    Nah, he doesn't give a shit about the military. He loves some of the things the military does (the trappings of dictatorship, the power to dominate others, etc) but like with basically everything, he doesn't give a shit about it as an institution or as a collection of actual people.

    This whole thing is just something cooked up by Miller or the like to chip away at the rights of non-whites to exist within the US.

    tynicMild ConfusionFencingsaxGennenalyse RuebenBigJoeMHappy Little MachineBlackDragon480Gnome-InterruptusElldrenLabelAistanLovelyelectricitylikesmeMegaMekbrynhrtmn
  • ElJeffeElJeffe mod Moderator, ClubPA mod
    I think the new citizenship change is motivated solely by a) fucking over brown people in some manner that is ostensibly within the power of the president, and b) giving another bullshit justification for when ICE wants to deport someone.

    Yeah, that last one won't stand up in court all the time, but who cares? Tell the person that's why you're deporting them, and hopefully they'll be deported into a country they've never been to that speaks a language they don't know before they have a chance to lawyer up.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    DarkPrimusGnome-Interruptuselectricitylikesme
  • ElJeffeElJeffe mod Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    It's worse than that

    The argument is that the Constitution and all protection of law only applies to people they decide are US citizens.

    Speaking of that:



    My hope is that a future Democrat president issues instruction to USCIS telling them to recognize the citizenship of people born abroad who are children of US citizens. Not to grant them citizenship, but to recognize the citizenship that they already actually held.

    My hope is that a future Democratic president issues instruction to USCIS telling them to grant US citizenship to all of Guatemala just out of spite.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    OrcaArbitraryDescriptorGennenalyse RuebenJragghenCantidoHarry DresdenShadowfireBlackDragon480ElldrenKamarLadaiDuke 2.0JaysonFourElvenshaeShadowhopeLovely
  • RickRudeRickRude regular Registered User regular
    From my experience this will affect people from Puerto rico. Although Google tells me they are automatically citizens now. I had a couple people in boot camp who were joining for their us citizenship.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D regular Registered User regular
    RickRude wrote: »
    From my experience this will affect people from Puerto rico. Although Google tells me they are automatically citizens now. I had a couple people in boot camp who were joining for their us citizenship.

    Puerto Rico is part of the US and it's citizens are US citizens. For over 100 years. Sure you weren't thinking of somewhere else or immigrants to the island?

    ElldrenSpoitDuke 2.0tynicBullheadLovelyMan in the MistsZonugal
  • mcdermottmcdermott regular Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    For example, if the U.S. citizen, still having never resided in the United States, subsequently marries another U.S. citizen who never resided in the United States, and they give birth to a child outside the United States, the child will not acquire citizenship at birth under INA 301(c) because neither U.S. citizen parent can show the requisite residence in the United States.

    However, I assume that if those citizen parents do later take up residence in the US before the child turns eighteen, and the child lives with them as legal guardians, then the child can pursue automatic citizenship under some chapter or another?

    I also have to think that the group of new parents who are citizens, and *would* meet the residency requirement if military/civil service counted, but *don’t* under this policy, is pretty damn small. But as noted, multiply times hundreds of thousands of people and rare things will happen eventually.

    Edit: This mostly seems to impact the “adult citizens by birth who’ve never actually lived here” demographic. Or rather their children. And even then only in rare cases where they...have kids with a service member who *also* hasn’t lived in the US for the requisite time before joining?

    I normally don't chime in to D&D threads, but wanted to add a not-US perspective on that exact weird demographic. I am a British citizen by descent and hold a British passport, but I've never lived in the UK so I'm not considered a resident. If I have a child in any country other than the UK, I won't pass citizenship to the child. So this seems normal from my perspective, but something that would only apply to the narrowest of edge cases.

    (And no, this isn't some sort of weird Brexit thing, it's been like this for ages)

    Yeah this is not at all an uncommon policy around the world.

    Also, there are many servicemembers who are not citizens at all, or who are naturalized and don’t meet the residency requirements yet. People forget that you don’t need to be American to join the US Army.

    ElldrenElvenshae
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe regular Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    For example, if the U.S. citizen, still having never resided in the United States, subsequently marries another U.S. citizen who never resided in the United States, and they give birth to a child outside the United States, the child will not acquire citizenship at birth under INA 301(c) because neither U.S. citizen parent can show the requisite residence in the United States.

    However, I assume that if those citizen parents do later take up residence in the US before the child turns eighteen, and the child lives with them as legal guardians, then the child can pursue automatic citizenship under some chapter or another?

    I also have to think that the group of new parents who are citizens, and *would* meet the residency requirement if military/civil service counted, but *don’t* under this policy, is pretty damn small. But as noted, multiply times hundreds of thousands of people and rare things will happen eventually.

    Edit: This mostly seems to impact the “adult citizens by birth who’ve never actually lived here” demographic. Or rather their children. And even then only in rare cases where they...have kids with a service member who *also* hasn’t lived in the US for the requisite time before joining?

    I normally don't chime in to D&D threads, but wanted to add a not-US perspective on that exact weird demographic. I am a British citizen by descent and hold a British passport, but I've never lived in the UK so I'm not considered a resident. If I have a child in any country other than the UK, I won't pass citizenship to the child. So this seems normal from my perspective, but something that would only apply to the narrowest of edge cases.

    (And no, this isn't some sort of weird Brexit thing, it's been like this for ages)

    Yeah, but you're not living outside the UK because you're busy risking your life for King and Country.

    Does the UK not extend birthright citizenship to the children of Britons serving in the diplomatic corps or the armed services?

  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    For example, if the U.S. citizen, still having never resided in the United States, subsequently marries another U.S. citizen who never resided in the United States, and they give birth to a child outside the United States, the child will not acquire citizenship at birth under INA 301(c) because neither U.S. citizen parent can show the requisite residence in the United States.

    However, I assume that if those citizen parents do later take up residence in the US before the child turns eighteen, and the child lives with them as legal guardians, then the child can pursue automatic citizenship under some chapter or another?

    I also have to think that the group of new parents who are citizens, and *would* meet the residency requirement if military/civil service counted, but *don’t* under this policy, is pretty damn small. But as noted, multiply times hundreds of thousands of people and rare things will happen eventually.

    Edit: This mostly seems to impact the “adult citizens by birth who’ve never actually lived here” demographic. Or rather their children. And even then only in rare cases where they...have kids with a service member who *also* hasn’t lived in the US for the requisite time before joining?

    I normally don't chime in to D&D threads, but wanted to add a not-US perspective on that exact weird demographic. I am a British citizen by descent and hold a British passport, but I've never lived in the UK so I'm not considered a resident. If I have a child in any country other than the UK, I won't pass citizenship to the child. So this seems normal from my perspective, but something that would only apply to the narrowest of edge cases.

    (And no, this isn't some sort of weird Brexit thing, it's been like this for ages)

    If that country doesn't grant citizenship to babies of non-citizens when born there, where would the baby be a citizen of then?

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
    BlackDragon480FencingsaxGnizmodispatch.o
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt regular Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, there are many servicemembers who are not citizens at all, or who are naturalized and don’t meet the residency requirements yet. People forget that you don’t need to be American to join the US Army.

    That one in particular still bothers me on a fundamental level, at least in terms of the hoops they have to jump through afterwards (assuming they don't end up tossed out of the country first, as happens to a lot of translators and the like, especially under Bush).

    If a non-citizen wants to stay around and serves out their time in the armed forces they should get their discharge papers with their citizenship papers paperclipped onto them. That very day.

    OrcaFencingsaxLabelSmrtniktynicAl_watPolaritieKayne Red RobeShadowfireLovelyMan in the MistsCalicabrynhrtmnemp123
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor regular Registered User regular
    edited August 29
    Mortious wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    For example, if the U.S. citizen, still having never resided in the United States, subsequently marries another U.S. citizen who never resided in the United States, and they give birth to a child outside the United States, the child will not acquire citizenship at birth under INA 301(c) because neither U.S. citizen parent can show the requisite residence in the United States.

    However, I assume that if those citizen parents do later take up residence in the US before the child turns eighteen, and the child lives with them as legal guardians, then the child can pursue automatic citizenship under some chapter or another?

    I also have to think that the group of new parents who are citizens, and *would* meet the residency requirement if military/civil service counted, but *don’t* under this policy, is pretty damn small. But as noted, multiply times hundreds of thousands of people and rare things will happen eventually.

    Edit: This mostly seems to impact the “adult citizens by birth who’ve never actually lived here” demographic. Or rather their children. And even then only in rare cases where they...have kids with a service member who *also* hasn’t lived in the US for the requisite time before joining?

    I normally don't chime in to D&D threads, but wanted to add a not-US perspective on that exact weird demographic. I am a British citizen by descent and hold a British passport, but I've never lived in the UK so I'm not considered a resident. If I have a child in any country other than the UK, I won't pass citizenship to the child. So this seems normal from my perspective, but something that would only apply to the narrowest of edge cases.

    (And no, this isn't some sort of weird Brexit thing, it's been like this for ages)

    If that country doesn't grant citizenship to babies of non-citizens when born there, where would the baby be a citizen of then?

    Statelessness is a real, weird, and interesting thing. You'll have a hell of a time getting an entry visa to another country, but you also can't be deported because you're not from anywhere that will take you.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
    ElldrenGnome-Interruptus
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt regular Registered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    For example, if the U.S. citizen, still having never resided in the United States, subsequently marries another U.S. citizen who never resided in the United States, and they give birth to a child outside the United States, the child will not acquire citizenship at birth under INA 301(c) because neither U.S. citizen parent can show the requisite residence in the United States.

    However, I assume that if those citizen parents do later take up residence in the US before the child turns eighteen, and the child lives with them as legal guardians, then the child can pursue automatic citizenship under some chapter or another?

    I also have to think that the group of new parents who are citizens, and *would* meet the residency requirement if military/civil service counted, but *don’t* under this policy, is pretty damn small. But as noted, multiply times hundreds of thousands of people and rare things will happen eventually.

    Edit: This mostly seems to impact the “adult citizens by birth who’ve never actually lived here” demographic. Or rather their children. And even then only in rare cases where they...have kids with a service member who *also* hasn’t lived in the US for the requisite time before joining?

    I normally don't chime in to D&D threads, but wanted to add a not-US perspective on that exact weird demographic. I am a British citizen by descent and hold a British passport, but I've never lived in the UK so I'm not considered a resident. If I have a child in any country other than the UK, I won't pass citizenship to the child. So this seems normal from my perspective, but something that would only apply to the narrowest of edge cases.

    (And no, this isn't some sort of weird Brexit thing, it's been like this for ages)

    If that country doesn't grant citizenship to babies of non-citizens when born there, where would the baby be a citizen of then?

    Statelessness is a real, weird, and interesting thing. You'll have a hell of a time getting an entry visa to another country, but you also can't be deported because you're not from anywhere that will take you.

    Usually, at least. The US isn't signatory to a lot of treaties on statelessness and will spend months or years shopping around to convince other countries to accept stateless people it wants to get rid of.

  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Well.

    This is getting interesting. Still not gonna claim my kids citizenship.

  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited August 29
    Well.

    This is getting interesting. Still not gonna claim my kids citizenship.

    Do you have your NZ citizenship yet?

    I dropped my SA one as soon as I got it, but I am lead to believe that it's harder for US citizenship.

    edit: Oh yes, this was in the Herald, underneath an article about Trump doing something or the other

    Zs7t92Jl.jpg?1

    Mortious on
    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    Well.

    This is getting interesting. Still not gonna claim my kids citizenship.

    Do you have your NZ citizenship yet?

    I dropped my SA one as soon as I got it, but I am lead to believe that it's harder for US citizenship.
    Not yet. I've got my residency.

    The kid has hey NZ citizenship though. So she won't be stateless.

    MortiousJaysonFourDark Raven XHarry DresdenBlackDragon480ShadowfireGnizmoMan in the MistsCalicaAntoshkaemp123
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    Zibblsnrt wrote: »
    Mortious wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    For example, if the U.S. citizen, still having never resided in the United States, subsequently marries another U.S. citizen who never resided in the United States, and they give birth to a child outside the United States, the child will not acquire citizenship at birth under INA 301(c) because neither U.S. citizen parent can show the requisite residence in the United States.

    However, I assume that if those citizen parents do later take up residence in the US before the child turns eighteen, and the child lives with them as legal guardians, then the child can pursue automatic citizenship under some chapter or another?

    I also have to think that the group of new parents who are citizens, and *would* meet the residency requirement if military/civil service counted, but *don’t* under this policy, is pretty damn small. But as noted, multiply times hundreds of thousands of people and rare things will happen eventually.

    Edit: This mostly seems to impact the “adult citizens by birth who’ve never actually lived here” demographic. Or rather their children. And even then only in rare cases where they...have kids with a service member who *also* hasn’t lived in the US for the requisite time before joining?

    I normally don't chime in to D&D threads, but wanted to add a not-US perspective on that exact weird demographic. I am a British citizen by descent and hold a British passport, but I've never lived in the UK so I'm not considered a resident. If I have a child in any country other than the UK, I won't pass citizenship to the child. So this seems normal from my perspective, but something that would only apply to the narrowest of edge cases.

    (And no, this isn't some sort of weird Brexit thing, it's been like this for ages)

    If that country doesn't grant citizenship to babies of non-citizens when born there, where would the baby be a citizen of then?

    Statelessness is a real, weird, and interesting thing. You'll have a hell of a time getting an entry visa to another country, but you also can't be deported because you're not from anywhere that will take you.

    Usually, at least. The US isn't signatory to a lot of treaties on statelessness and will spend months or years shopping around to convince other countries to accept stateless people it wants to get rid of.

    Mostly because of the situations of territories like American Samoa, which is not considered US soil. (Puerto Rico still is tho)

    fuck gendered marketing
    Duke 2.0BlackDragon480
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt regular Registered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    I dropped my SA one as soon as I got it, but I am lead to believe that it's harder for US citizenship.

    There's a bunch of fees and audits involved, and the State Department can just nope an attempted renunciation if they want to, so some people can find it to be a bit of a minefield.

    FencingsaxlonelyahavaElldren
  • baudattitudebaudattitude regular Registered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    For example, if the U.S. citizen, still having never resided in the United States, subsequently marries another U.S. citizen who never resided in the United States, and they give birth to a child outside the United States, the child will not acquire citizenship at birth under INA 301(c) because neither U.S. citizen parent can show the requisite residence in the United States.

    However, I assume that if those citizen parents do later take up residence in the US before the child turns eighteen, and the child lives with them as legal guardians, then the child can pursue automatic citizenship under some chapter or another?

    I also have to think that the group of new parents who are citizens, and *would* meet the residency requirement if military/civil service counted, but *don’t* under this policy, is pretty damn small. But as noted, multiply times hundreds of thousands of people and rare things will happen eventually.

    Edit: This mostly seems to impact the “adult citizens by birth who’ve never actually lived here” demographic. Or rather their children. And even then only in rare cases where they...have kids with a service member who *also* hasn’t lived in the US for the requisite time before joining?

    I normally don't chime in to D&D threads, but wanted to add a not-US perspective on that exact weird demographic. I am a British citizen by descent and hold a British passport, but I've never lived in the UK so I'm not considered a resident. If I have a child in any country other than the UK, I won't pass citizenship to the child. So this seems normal from my perspective, but something that would only apply to the narrowest of edge cases.

    (And no, this isn't some sort of weird Brexit thing, it's been like this for ages)

    If that country doesn't grant citizenship to babies of non-citizens when born there, where would the baby be a citizen of then?

    In my case I am a dual citizen so a hypothetical Baud, Jr would get citizenship from my other state. If that wasn’t the case then the mother’s would apply unless she was also in the sort of weird citizenship limbo that happens when you’re born overseas. It’s really hard not to have *A* country that claims you. It just might not be your first choice.

  • madparrotmadparrot regular Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    So can Trump even legally do this petty bullshit thing. If it's based on a law, couldn't someone take the US to court and argue that dip shit in chief cannot change the law on a whim, even if his fascist fucker buddy, Steve Miller insisted on it?

    Careful please - that's Stephen Miller. Steve Miller is considerably less fascist

Sign In or Register to comment.