Reread the OP–she moved to Ireland in her second WEEK of pregnancy. If the child is extremely premature (e.g., born at 22 weeks when Mommy’s only been here 20 weeks), there might be a red flag, but if kiddo arrives at 7 pounds or so, what’s their motivation for trying to figure out whether pregnancy lasted 37 weeks or 41 (either of which would be in the “normal” range)?
Going by the OP which stated that the father applied for the citizenship. If he is incorrect then the OP is wrong. It could very well be that this would only come to light when a passport was applied for. I don’t have any special knowledge about the procedures.
Ireland does not confer citizen simply by being born there. This is similar to Japan.
In Japan, there have been children born to unmarried parents with foreign mothers and who were initially denied citizenship despite having Japanese fathers claim paternity until DNA testing was performed. In some cases the DNA confirmed the father and in others not. Those children whose fathers were confirmed as being father were granted citizenship.
I would guess that Ireland could have some sort of a similar system. Maybe not. It could be less strict than either Japan or the US.
No, that was not the point of the OP. The OP presented a four-paragraph long general question, and then used this expressly hypothetical example to illustrate his question. MY point is that the response to this example would not necessarily be applicable in all, or many, or any other circumstances that could be used as a general model. Researching the applicable laws of Canada and Ireland would not address the OP’s general question as stated, but only the specific example he proffered as a hypothetical
This is incorrect. The whole point of an anchor baby – indeed, the reason they are called that – is to help other members of the family enter the country legally.
Some conservatives are against this concept, for various reasons. Some people feel that jumping the quota system is unfair to the people in the quota system. Others just want to limit immigration, regardless of the form that the limitation takes.
I assume like most other western countries, as mentioned, nobody “applies” for citizenship if born there. Unless the authorities are involved (why would they be, absent complaint by father or hospital nosey Parker?) nobody would question anything.
the only interesting issue is that I assume, like Canada, an undocumented, illegal resident giving birth would be hit with a substantial bill. Free health care is one thing that you need to register for.
The real “apply for citizenship” question comes up if the child or a parent applies for a passport. Then they have to provide sufficient documentation to satisfy authorities whose job it is to scrutinize these things. If the child is born in Ireland, has lived in Ireland all their life, with their Irish father, whose name is on the birth certificate at time of birth and never contested by him, I doubt any alarm bells would go off requiring the Passport Office to dig deeper - despite the mother’s doubtful status.
If the mother was deported, an the child stayed behind, even more evidence of the father being legit.
If the child left with the mother, I assume someone applying for an Irish passport from Canada for an illegitimate child might get to the level of “DNA proof required”. Similarly, in or out of Ireland, if there appeared to be a racial mismatch.
Assolutely. And if my client hadn’t knocked up his now-wife basically as soon as they met, or if they’d had pretty much any documentation at all other than a single photo of the baptism, the consular officer might not have requested the DNA test at all, in spite of the age difference, etc.
Can a minor petition for their parent to be allowed to enter legally?
Also, I thought that living here without documentation was enough to block legal status–like, you can’t apply if it’s clear you are already living here. Is that not true?
I thought this was beaten to death in another thread. The child cannot petition to get the parents in (legally) until the child is 18. Then again, don’t requirements for supporting these “sponsored” immigrants basically preclude most children until they are older, unless the parents have money (in which case, why would they have come illegally?). Plus, perhaps someone who knows the law can chime in, but wouldn’t being deported - or even evidence you lived in the USA illegally before voluntarily departing - count seriously against an attempt to get legal entry?
The “anchor baby” thing that was in the news last year was richer (typically) Chinese entering to have their child; this was more a case of long-term planning, it meant their child had the option in the future of moving to the USA if things were not going well in China… and then maybe sponsoring the parents.
For poorer illegal residents, it’s not so much planning as the simple result of living their life - including having a family - where they live. A few might hurry across the border to give their impending bundle of joy a future option like the rich Chinese. However, reality shows that having a child has not magically converted any illegals to legal, nor has there been any guarantee given that parents will not be deported. Nor does it look like there will be such. The whole anchor baby right-wing hysteria is just that.
Actually, not until the child is 21.
Most family-based immigrants do require a sponsor, but it’s also possible to have a joint sponsor if the person who filed the petition doesn’t have enough income or assets to qualify alone. The joint sponsor does not even need to be related to the prospective immigrant. Details here.
Absolutely. Here’s a plain-language explanation of the unlawful presence bars. There are additional bars to lawful reentry for having been deported previously, depending on the circumstances of the deportation.
As a matter of policy, if not law, the Obama administration’s DAPA program would have specifically exempted a few million people from deportation based on their status as parents of “anchor babies” if it had taken effect, right?
Unfortunately for most people, the average Joe isn’t expected to be questioned concerning the legitimacy of the arrangement.
I’ve always been really careful when dealing with immigration officials of whatever country is involved, since a simple “no” on the part of a mid (low?) level official can cost thousands of dollars and huge amounts of time and inconvenience.
Hence the overkill. Talking notebooks of documentation, photos, etc.
My now-wife also got pregnant very soon into the relationship, but we had a much better documented story that sounded reasonable.
The funny thing is that if I were asked what kind of stuff my wife has in the bathroom, like it happened in the movie Green Card, I will still draw a blank, some 11 years after we started living together. Hell if I know. There’s some bottles / jars / tubes of variously colored things. She puts some on her face, others on other places and I couldn’t pick them out of a lineup.
However I could show you ticket stubs for going back to her home country to meet her parents, and some photos of the meeting.
Spain is another of the countries where being born there doesn’t always confer citizenship (whether it does or does not depends on the citizenships of the parents), but either you’re a citizen at birth (in which case there is no application process) or you’re not (in which case where did you happen to be born isn’t relevant to the application process).
In Ireland, in addition to those two categories, there are two others:
- people who are entitled to citizenship from birth but are not yet citizens (e.g. someone born overseas whose grandparent was Irish);
- people who are born in Northern Ireland and have the option under the Belfast Agreement of being Irish or British citizens or both. They can “activate” their Irish citizenship at any time simply by acting as an Irish citizen, without any application process.
Yes, but my point - you don’t necessarily “apply” for citizenship unless you try to obtain a passport. (Admittedly, that’s a lot more common than even 20 years ago). Otherwise, you just continue to live the life you live where you live.
I assume the process for applying for the “Social Security Number” equivalent is the closest someone would get to a government agency vetting their citizenship worthiness. I don’t know about the modern process or the Irish process but I assume all that’s needed is the birth certificate. If that says one Irish parent who apparently has accepted paternity for what, 16 or 18 years, then odds are they will easily pass that hurdle.
Passports application checks nowadays may be a bit more intrusive.
Also, if the person got into serious trouble with the law, they might dig deeper. But generally, someone born and raised there with an alleged citizen parent is unlike to trigger serious scrutiny.
I wonder about the requirement in some countries and states to take DNA samples from all felons. (Didn’t Britain start doing this?) Would that trigger alarm bells somehow? I kind of assume it’s just filed away unless it matches a crime sample. Perhaps there’s some scenario where the biological father had been in Ireland years before the conception and committed a crime, and the forensic DNA sample would be sitting there waiting to be matched until Junior offends. Then the local SWAT team kicks in the pretend daddy’s door and drags him off to interrogation until the samples fails to match…
But unless they know the identity of the real father, DNA only tells them that the father is unknown, not that he’s not Irish.