This is not accurate, but beyond the scope of this thread.
From the Department of State webpage on dual nationality:
Also, re: dual nationality, if you leave the US for the parent’s country, American citizenship is a tax nightmare.
Signed, a US-born-and-raised child of an illegal alien dual citizen who left the US.
That’s fairly easy to decide. Someone who has been admitted to the US as a lawful permanent resident. And that’s it. They will have a “green card” (USCIS Form I-551) with their picture, date of admission, and registration number as proof of their status.
So that means, if the EO is allowed to take effect (which, I guess for now it is?) the children of people who are lawfully present but do not have lawful permanent resident status and are not citizens will not be US citizens. Allegedly. Or at least, they won’t be recognized as citizens by the federal government, which is almost a distinction without a difference, except then I suppose it’s technically a matter of discrimination between US citizens (those who have a USC or LPR parent vs. those who don’t) rather than a direct violation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Until, that is, this gets a decision on the merits and a court says “Actually, it’s not discrimination between citizens because those people are not actually and never have been citizens.” Which, as I think through it, could actually have retroactive effect.
Moreover, a REAL ID by itself will not suffice to prove legal permanent residency or citizenship because many people who are neither (such as student visa holders or people in the US on parole or with Temporary Protect Status or a whole host of other legal presence categories accounting for at least millions of people) can obtain a REAL ID.
Typically, what happens, is a government agency has some law or regulation it must follow that lays out what proof of citizenship is. Presumably—and the EO might spell this out—merely having a US birth certificate date circa February 2025 onward will not suffice. Possibly they will begin to accept Birth Certificates that indicate parental citizenship as verified at the time of issuance, but honestly I don’t really know. There are so many practical problems with so many second and third order effects that I cannot even begin to conceive of how this regulatory scheme works.
This being factual questions, I don’t think I can say any more than that.
But not citizenship. And RealID has had issues.
Yes, that seems to be his idea.
ISTM that citizens have permanent lawful presence. Anyone else with lawful presence can have that lawfulness revoked via legit (IOW pre-trump) legal procedures. Which revocation would not necessarily (that I know of) result in the revocation of their Real ID. Federal vs state and all that.
A citizen’s lawful presence cannot be revoked without first revoking their citizenship (and, I believe also, their nationality). Which is a whole 'nother can of worms.
Which is ironic because there’s no such thing as an anchor baby. The child being a US citizen does not confer any special advantage on the parent. They can still be deported whether they have children or not.
My question really was abou those people admitted as special cases. For example, people admitted as refugees - have gone through the entire process and been recognized as refugees. or those like some people from Haiti who received special permision to stay in the country. I presume the US would have to change rules, because if a refugee is allowed to become a permanent resident, what about children born to them before thy were so certified? Does the parental status then fall on the child? Can the child be deported even if the parent is a now permanent resident?
ISTM the process of approving passports will get far more complex if the rules change.
I had something similar once when I had to apply for a Canadian security clearance. My stepmother and I were never on good terms, I had no idea where she was born (which country) or her maiden name. I’m imagining similar situations where documentation is so cloudy for older folk that someone’s status may never be validated. I don’t imagine the passport office or ICE is going to do a genealogical deep dive on the citizen’s behalf. Then what? Deport unless you can prove otherwise? (I believe this was to topic of the short Cheech and Chong documentary Born in East LA. )
You are right, in that a parent who is here illegally does not automatically get to stay here with a minor child born here, and the courts are not full of bleeding-heart liberal judges who allow them to stay.
But the Right thinks this happens.
From what I understand, the parent has three choices upon deportation: place the child with a relative who is a legal resident or citizen, surrender the child to the welfare system, or take the child with them to the country to which they are deported.
The only “extra” thing parents of citizen children might get is a stay of deportation for a few days to make arrangements for the child, or to wait for a relative to be ready to receive them, or CPS to have a foster home open.
Nonetheless, “anchor babies” are a right-wing boogeyman, just like women who have more babies to increase their welfare check. So Trump is doing * something * about them to make his base happy.
I know that a person can be denaturalized but can a natural born citizen’s citizenship be revoked ?
Can of worms, not my area of law, and the answer would be based on prior court cases which, as we have increasingly seen, are liable to be ignored.
About 15 years ago in Canada, Prime Minster Harper proposed such a thing for the bogeyman of the right, terrorists. Of course, it would only apply to those who had dual citizenship, since the problem otherwise is creating a stateless citizen. Note that a country is not obliged to accept a deportee who is not their citizen so what’s the point if the person has no other citizenship. However, that would have created a problem for natural-born Canadians like myself, who has dual citizenship from my parents. The loud complaints were that there should NOT be two classes of citizens, those who can lose their citizenship and those who can’t. This would be particularly problematic in the USA which alleges they do not recognize dual citizenship, to codify this distinction into law.
What are you referring to?
As posted upthread:
IIRC this turns on the precise meaning of “recognize” in this case.
If the US government, in its infinite majesty, blithely ignores the fact someone has dual citizenship, that’s not the same as “recognizing”, and therefore making allowances for, someone with dual citizenship and the conflicts that might arise between the demands of the two countries on the one person.
IOW …
The USA doesn’t care that you might have other citizenship and e.g. doesn’t give a shit how inconvenient you being drafted into the US military might be for whatever other country you might also be attached to. Not their problem.
By that meaning, I don’t think there is any country that “doesn’t recognise” dual citizenship. Every country recognises its own citizens, and requires them to obey the laws of that country, regardless whether they have a citizenship in another country.
“Not recognising dual citizenship” normally means things like forbidding one’s own citizens to acquire citizenship in another country, or requiring a citizen who acquires citizenship in another country to renounce their original citizenship.
I mean it’s not codified in law that there are people with multiple citizenships - from what I’m reading, it’s simply ignored. Unless the law intended to create "stateless citizens’ (then what?) a law allowing a person to be stripped of their citizenship if they hold another one, would implicitly recognize that as a class of citizen. The only convenience would be if the stateless person was not currently residing in the USA.
(I suppose if someone is stateless they could go live in Charles de Gaulle airport…)
My parents were both born in the US to US citizens. A few years ago, they needed passports for a cruise they were going to take. Applying for passports uncovered problems in both parents’ documentation. My father’s birth certificate didn’t list his name, just “baby boy [lastname]”.
My mom had other documentation problems, something about not having a birth certificate and the original records unattainable.
It took some effort, but they were able to clear up both situations and get the passports.
Two middle class septagenarians who had resources and information to provide alternative justification. But it wasn’t easy, and this was pre-Trump II. I’m sure there are others that wouldn’t be so lucky.
That seems to have been an issue back in the day. My father was born around 1930 and is deceased now, but IIRC he told a story of discovering that’s what his birth cert said too.
This came to light when he tried to enlist in USMC after high school. He was born in a hospital in a big US city, so you might think this was not too hard to fix. You’d be wrong. But eventually he, his BC, and USMC all agreed on his name.
My dad had to find someone who knew him his whole life to state that he was the person listed so they would amend the birth certificate. Fortunately, he has an older brother. Hey, 2 years older is older.
And they were free to roam to chase details, and had the money. North America is a very mobile society. People may grow up in multiple places, and not have long term acquaintances. Documentation is likely to be lost for highly mobile people. We’ve had several threads on “how do you prove your identity”.