Given that English kings of old often married European wives, I don’t see how being Canadian (which is a Commonwealth country) would be any barrier to becoming queen consort, or to her offspring becoming the English monarch.
Thanks for elaborating, blinkingblinking, and for digging up the Declaration.
The distinction between participating in government as a human right, and establishing agreed-upon qualifications for elected positions in that government is key.
You might, however, ask “isn’t the exclusion of minors from the electorate a violation of human rights?” According to the Declaration, it is. I’m not trying to derail the conversation, but to point out that the Declaration is no substitute for common sense.
Do you think its a violation of *universal human rights * when a nation, any nation, any form of government, restricts in any way the eligibility for leadership?
To be more specific, any person born to parent (s) with American citizenship is automatically eligible to be a citizen of the US. One does have to have a consular report of birth abroad or other proof.
Until you register and it is accepted by a consular official, I believe you’re in a grey area where the US government does not officially recognize you as a natural born US citizen.
I believe that to be incorrect. Walloon’s post #25 above qoted the relevant part of federal law:
It’s quite clear from this that if a man and a woman – each of whom is a US citizen by virtue of their parents’ US citizenship, but neither of whom has ever lived in the US – have a child, that child will not have the natural-born right of US citizenship (I would imagine, however, that it would look pretty good on a US immigration application!).
Compare that with Ireland: a person with at least one Irish-citizen grandparent may be eligible for Irish citizenship.
I’m not a immigration expert, while children of US parents are natural born, but if said parents don’t register that fact the kid would not have a US passport, SS#, etc.
If something were to happen to the kid the US embassy would be powerless to do anything. For example (and this example was used by the US consulate in Shanghai when proactively discouraging keeping dual nationality), if the child was born in China and did not receive a consular report of birth abroad and was involved in a serious car accident that required an air ambulance and emergency evacuation to another country, well that kid would be SOL from a US citizen point of view. The kid would not be considered a US citizen, would not have a US passport, and therefore not eligible for support from US citizen services at the US embassy. But that kid qualifies as a natural born citizen.
One has to prove citizenship via birth certificate, consular report of birth abroad, baptismal records, etc.
Chinaguy, if your last post was in answer to my last post, then I have to assume that we’re talking at cross-purposes.
I’m not referring to a case where a “natural-born citizen” born abroad is merely in a situation where the applicable paperwork has not been filed. I’m talking about the fact that there exist scenarios under which a child can be born, both of whose parents are US citizens, but the child is not at birth eligible for US citizenship.
Example: Adam, Barbara, Christine, and David are all US citizens, born and raised in (let’s say) California. They are all friends, and decide, for ideological reasons, to emigrate to Kafiristan, where they happily settle. Once there, Ellen (the daughter of Adam and Barbara) and Frank (the son of Christine and David) are born, and are automatically US citizens due to the US citizenship of their parents, who at one point were resident in the US (as per Walloon’s link).
Twenty years pass, and – to the great joy of their parents – Ellen and Frank (who, despite being US citizens, have lived abroad for their entire lives) fall in love, marry, and have a child, Gary.
Gary, despite being the child of two US citizens, has no claim on US citizenship. He can petition the US Embassy in Kafiristan until he’s blue in the face, but he will have no citizenship rights whatsoever as far as the US is concerned. Now, as I mentioned upthread, the US might look favorably on him if at a later date he wants to immigrate to the US (having four US-citizen grandparents and two US-citizen parents), but it would definitely be in the hands of the Immigration folk: he would not be a natural-born US citizen, and would not be eligible to become PotUS. Not because of paperwork that was filed late, but because he has no claim to US citizenship.
China Guy,
It’s not a request for citizenship but rather a report of birth abroad of a U.S. citizen. The child, if said child qualifies under the law, is a U.S. citizen at birth. It’s up to the parent, however, to notify the appropriate authorities (U.S. Embassy or Consular officials) of the child’s existance.
Very true, but no indication that Ireland is more progressive than the USA, IMHO. Ireland does this, the same as Italy and several other European countries, because their populations are declining. They’re trying to encourage people to come back.
If I had Irish ancestry, I’d consider it. The economy is doing quite well now. It’s become a hub for internationalization services, which I have a background in. It’s also doing quite well in computer services as a whole. The cultural life is amazing, and last but not least the country is beautiful.
Oops, I’d forgotten that - quite right. However, according to the Library of Canada biography of John Turner, his mother was a Canadian. Her husband died when John was three years old and she returned to Canada, ~1932. I’m not sure how the transitional provisions worked when we created Canadian citizenship in the late 40s, but he would likely have been considered a natural-born Canadian, rather than an immigrant who acquired citizenship.
Of course, in the case of Macdonald, Mackenzie and Bowell, they were all British subjects, which was the requirement at that time to stand for election in Canadian politics, since there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship at that time.
With an Irish passport you could also freely work anywhere in the EU. Not a bad scam.
“Scam”?
I didn’t mean to suggest any judgement of values: I was just pointing out that citizenship rights die out in emigrant populations (previous posters had implied that US citizenship was self-perpetuating through the generations regardless of residency concerns). Almost all countries have similar laws: Ireland’s just happens to have a longer generational “reach” than the US’s. Israel’s Law of Return has no generational limit, but that’s obviously a special case because there are no ancestral requirements whatsoever.
You’d have to change your location tag from Bialystock to Ballystock! 