You can probably guess what part of the US this is happening in and who is being impacted. Hispanics who live near the border.
I sure feel great again.
What does “evidence of his mother’s prenatal care, his baptismal certificate, (or) rental agreements from when he was a baby” prove. I’m sure the Trump administration has heard of anchor babies who are citizens despite their mother living in a foreign country up until days before the child’s birth even if the mother is here illegally. I don’t think returning to Mexico to have the child baptized there with grandparents or renting there removes the citizenship does it?
I guess they want to see if the mother went to a US based Dr. for care before the kid was born. But for a 40 year old I don’t think a lot of those records will still be around.
This sort of supplementary documentation is in other circumstances used when there is a lack of the officially required proofs of citizenship and presence - specifically, birth certificates and prior legal IDs.
As the article reports, there seems to be an issue with that there were fraudulently recorded births in the past, and the policy had begun back in the 2000s but had been mostly stopped after a 2009 settlement. This goes further than the usual scenario of a counterfeit or “hijacked” birth certificate, it means allegation of questionable birth records, i.e. that the much-vaunted “original long form” that was filled at time of birth and submitted at the county clerk’s is itself suspect. (For contrast: when PR had a problem with a proliferation of fakes and ID theft at the start of this century, what was done was declare the then-circulating certificate papers themselves void as of a certain date and make everyone get themselves a new-issue one all over again, but that still presumed that the original record somewhere in the PRVSR microfiche vault was real and corresponded to one actual birth. This is instead imputing that such record was itself not valid.)
This creates a possibly excessive burden to exercising the rights of jus solis citizenship, by adding a demand to prove not just presence but residence of the parent in US soil. Nowhere in the Constitution or Law is a requirement to prove that in order for the 14th Amendment “born in the United States” provision to apply. **There are laws and rulings that specify what people are not “under the jurisdiction thereof” for the purposes of birth citizenship (e.g. diplomats, foreign military) but the default otherwise is that if you are born inside the US, it applies.
And people wonder what is the problem with voter ID requirements… well, now we know that even what’s supposed to be prime proof of citizenship, an authentic certified record of birth in US soil, is still subject to the authorities saying “not enough”.
Not to mention that mothers who used midwives – the source of the allegedly* fraudulent birth certificates – are much less likely to have seen a doctor prenatally than someone who gave birth in a hospital or with a doctor attending (who wouldn’t be sucked into this mess/trap).
*Yes, some midwives were falsifying birth records for people whose children were born in Mexico rather than the U.S. But I’m sure they were also midwifing many thousands of births in the U.S. for real.
IMHO, the burden should be on the Government to show that the birth certificate is false, not on the presumptive citizen to prove it’s valid, even for certificates issued by one of the midwifes convicted of, or who admitted to, such falsifying. Other than the birth certificate itself, how the hell do you prove 40+ years after the fact that you were born in the U.S.A. when you weren’t born in a hospital or doctor’s office?!
State department pushing back on that story:
The only push back the State Dept. released is a freaking bar graph?!?
Doesn’t Due Process require that the government present evidence, in each case, that the birth certificate is fraudulent, and the evidence must be weighed by a jury of the accused’s peers?
If it doesn’t, someone should make a Constitutional Amendment to add it.
That’s the only part of the “push back” that was cited in that article, but it doesn’t say that was the full press release (or whatever). I don’t think you can conclude that the graph was the only thing that State release.
The interns are still fabricating the rest.
Got a nickel says they’re just getting warmed up, gonna start, you know, asking questions. Like, how do we know Hispanic voters are really citizens? Maybe have an ICE agent visit every Hispanic home south of Dallas. We’ll say its a courtesy call, to reassure them.
There hasn’t been a press release, per the article. The entire State response was directly to Fox News. The bar chart doesn’t even contain axes definition. Not to be “that guy”, but I don’t trust Fox any further than I can punt Sean Hannity.
And that chart doesn’t prove anything. The percentages listed are the percent of those persons suspected who had their passports denied. But the real question is how many persons were suspected to begin with. If there were 10 passports questioned in 2016, of which 7 were confirmed and 3 denied, and 10,000 questioned in 2018, of which 7,500 were confirmed and 2,500 denied, it’s not much comfort that the percentage has gone up.
Got five bucks says ten yards! Who’s in?
(Maybe one of those gofundme things. We raise enough money, he’d not only consent to being kicked, he’d fuck a horned toad!)
Exactly my thoughts. Until actual numbers, not percentages, are released I will continue to see this “response” by State as being BS.
Yes, a major issue is who is now being treated as suspicious. If the Obama administration only acted when there was some evidence of fraud then it probably only examined a small number but denied most of the cases it acted on.
This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has done a passport sweep. The trans community has already been targeted. Trans people are experiencing difficulties when they apply for passports. Those who have been issued passports are experiencing difficulties when they apply for renewals. The supposed issue is the difference between the gender on their current passport or other documents and the gender on old documents such as their birth certificates. They’re being told they have to provide an explanation for the “discrepancy” with medical documentation.
There was no change in the law. This was just a policy that was issued when Mike Pompeo, a conservative Christian who opposes trans rights, became Secretary of State.
Another example of Republican Big Government.
There’s an irony in the same administration denying passports to hispanics on the basis that what’s on their birth certificate might be falsified while simultaneously denying trans people passports on the basis that what’s on their birth certificates must be irrevocably true. Pretty well shows that the real agenda is to harass members of groups they don’t like and the supposed principles being invoked are just being made up as an excuse.