Nope Afroyim v Rusk.
And the same applies for a naturalized citizen unless their application was defective like, for example, if they lied on it.
Amen.
This is confusing. Permanent resident is a legal status defined by having a green card. You can’t be a permanent resident and here illegally.
If you are using the phrase informally, try rephrasing.
That might be true, but doesn’t seem justified. “Domiciled” and “residing” are not legal status terms like “permanent resident” and sound explicitly generic to refer to living in the country regardless of status.
“Residing” is a factual term.
“Domiciled” is more complex. It’s a legal term at common law, and is tied to long-term intention to live in a particular jurisdiction. It’s legally more significant than “residence”.
À person can have more than one residence, but only one domicile.
But my private international law course is a long time ago and I can’t remember much more than that.
Wikipedia article on point:
Yes: for US voting purposes, I am a resident of California. I don’t pay state income tax or have to do jury duty, however, as I am not domiciled in California: I am a resident but do not reside there. Law words is funny.
Note that this is not sufficient to make one a US citizen. There is a also a residency requirement for the parent.
So what would happen to kids of unknown parentage who get adopted?
This topic is giving me anxiety.
For those who want the TL/DR: a born citizen can only lose that status by their own act of explicit, intentional renunciation.
Though the current DOJ has announced they intend to make it easier to prove the juatification.
If a child is under 5, found in the US, and parentage is unknown, they are presumed to be citizens.
The presumption can be rebutted up to age 21.
Hope that helps.
Go right to the bottom of the wall of text in this link;
They’re presumed to have been born in the place where they were found. This presumption can be challenged, but only until the child reaches adulthood, after which they retain their legal birth status regardless of any challenges to the factual conditions of their birth.
(I looked this up ages ago in connection to Superman, who legally would actually be considered a natural-born citizen of the US).
Thank you both.
If this results in Sovereign Citizens losing their citizenship I won’t complain.
From the New York Times
Babies born to immigrants without full legal status in the 28 states where there was no challenge to the executive order could be deprived of U.S. citizenship, raising concerns that a month from now, if Mr. Trump’s order goes into effect, there could be newborns who are stateless and vulnerable to deportation.
Some babies would be able to acquire the foreign citizenship of their parents, if their country of origin allows that. However, if they were born to parents from countries that do not recognize derivative citizenship through a parent, the babies could end up stateless. Among countries that allow derivative citizenship are Mexico, Brazil and Poland.
If a baby is born in a state that supports the Trump administration in opposing birthright citizenship, such as Texas, the child would not be eligible for a U.S. passport, nor for health and social benefits available only to citizens.
Being stateless has been a horror throughout history, most notably in the 1930s when the Nazis revoked Jewish citizenship through the Nuremberg Laws. Jews, like the potential babies in trump-supporting states, were therefore stateless and no longer had means to flee the country legally because they could not go anywhere that required a passport and visa. (Through a quirk of history, Shanghai had areas run by foreign governments which didn’t require visas, which resulted in the famed Jewish Ghetto that allowed a few tens of thousands to survive the war. A few other smaller sites also existed.) Statelessness led to the holocaust, justified by this legal technicality.
Many nations do not have birthright citizenship. What happens to children born to noncitizens there?
Does this help?
No. By my reading the article says nothing to address the fate vis a vis “statelessness” of children born to noncitizens in nations that do not grant birthright citizenship.
Sorry, I am no expert here. Maybe one of our legal eagles?
They will typically inherit their parents’ citizenship. Germany is an example. It is a traditional jus sanguinis jurisdiction which grants citizenship to the children of its own nationals; place of birth is irrelevant. This has now been mitigated by legislation that gives citizenship to children of foreigners born in the county provided that the parents have been here legally for at least five years; but until quite recently, there were hundreds of thousands of people born and raised im Germany who did not have citizenship, in particular in the large Turkish community.
So usually, those children will not be stateless. The most unfortunate scenario that can occur if your parents come from a pure jus soli jurisdiction but you’re born in a pure jus sanguinis jurisdiction; but these cases are rare.
Most nations have some combination of birthright citizenship and jus sanguinis (right of blood) so that usually a child will have a right to a parent’s citizenship. For example, an American citizen living in Italy has a child born in Italy. Italy doesn’t have birthright citizenship but under most circumstances the child will be an American citizen.* A child born to two stateless parents or two parents who cannot transmit their citizenship can claim Italian citizenship .
* American citizens must have been physically present in the US for a particular amount of time to transmit citizenship so someone who was born in the US to visiting Canadians who never actually lived in the US can’t pass on US citizenship.
This brings up the question - is there any country that does NOT pass citizenship to a child born of their citizens, from parents citizens who have lived in their home country for X years or born in their home country? (i.e. Jus sanguinis parents). I could see it being an issue if the parents have accepted other citizenship, or for grandchildren. What country says “nope, you gotta be born here, from legal citizen parents”?
I suppose the interesting quandry is if the parents are from two differnet countries and in the USA illegally? And, what about student visa residents?
Following WWII, my ancestor was eligible for South Korean citizenship, on the basis that he owned SK property, at the eligible cut-off date.
They wished to extend citizenship to Korean refugees, but that was a poorly documented group. A problem that the Koreans had was that they were “part of Japan” before the war, so “Korean Citizenship” did not exist. But land ownership did.