In brief, an American woman living in Israel uses egg and sperm donors for IVF. She has twins. When she applies for US citizenship for her children, she is informed that the children are not eligible because they do not have a biologic parent who is American.
On the one hand, this woman has chosen to live and give birth outside the United States so the question can be raised that she is not too invested in her citizenship.
On the other hand, this rule appears crazy to me. If she had adopted the children they would be US citizens. If she had lied about the IVF, her children would be granted citizenship.
The argument being made is that this law prevents foreigners from hiring American surogates to carry their babies in order to get US citizenship. ISTM that anyone willing to go to that much trouble could probably also arrange a trip to the US to give birth there to an anchor baby.
There’s a difference (or there should be) between a woman having her own children via sperm and egg donation, and a woman acting as a surrogate mother for another couple’s child.
It seems to me that she is legally the parent of the twins, and it should be treated akin to adoption. In the other scenario, the surrogate mother typically signs away her legal rights to the children. I’m guessing I don’t understand why the US government has a problem with this.
I agree with grude that this is just not true. There are lots of reasons to choose to live outside the US that don’t imply any lack of desire for citizenship.
The “parent” for citizenship reasons should be the person whose name is on the birth certificate. I assume in this case that’s the American woman, since apparently they don’t have the names of the donors.
As a practical matter, she should just wait a couple months and then go back to the embassy and lie about how the kids were conceived.
FWIW the woman in question(or a really committed imposter) was answering comments on that slate article, I was wondering how it came up at the embassy to begin with.