Is Your Child a U.S. Citizen if Born Abroad?

vijaynathg

Registered Users (C)
Hi All,

Both my wife and I are going to be US citizens this year. And if we decide to have kids in India, is the kid automatically going to be a US citizen or are there any immigration issues that I should be aware of.

Any inputs from this forum are greatly appreciated.

Thanks
 
You report the birth to a US consulate abroad and they will issue a Consular report of birth abroad (equivalent of a US birth certificate). You can and should also apply for US passport for the child at the US consulate.
 
Well, there is one issue that may bother you in the future. If you child is born aboard, he or she will not be able to stand for election as the president of the US. The other drawback is that: if your child continues to remain outside of the US and never establish her residency in the USA, he or she would not be able to extend the US citizenship right to his or her children.

The situation actually happens to me. My wife always ask my daughter to wish to be the president while I told her that she can stand for mayor or government, or may be senator, but not for president. If this is important to you, especially the continuation of the citizenship issue, then it is better to have your child born in the USA. You never know, your son may complaint to you in the future for denying his rights. Best of luck!
 
Well, there is one issue that may bother you in the future. If you child is born aboard, he or she will not be able to stand for election as the president of the US. The other drawback is that: if your child continues to remain outside of the US and never establish her residency in the USA, he or she would not be able to extend the US citizenship right to his or her children.

The situation actually happens to me. My wife always ask my daughter to wish to be the president while I told her that she can stand for mayor or government, or may be senator, but not for president. If this is important to you, especially the continuation of the citizenship issue, then it is better to have your child born in the USA. You never know, your son may complaint to you in the future for denying his rights. Best of luck!

Wrong.
He/she has to be a US citizen at birth, including being born abroad from american parents.
John McCain, who just ran for president (and unfortunately lost) was not born in the US.
 
I wish you were right, cross my heart.
John McCain was born in Panama. He got the Congress passed the resolution that ruled Panama was considered part of the USA because it was under the American administration at the time when McCain was born.
What if Obama was born 3 years earlier before Hawaii becomes a US state? Would Obama still qualifies to run for presidency?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, there is one issue that may bother you in the future. If you child is born aboard, he or she will not be able to stand for election as the president of the US. The other drawback is that: if your child continues to remain outside of the US and never establish her residency in the USA, he or she would not be able to extend the US citizenship right to his or her children.

The situation actually happens to me. My wife always ask my daughter to wish to be the president while I told her that she can stand for mayor or government, or may be senator, but not for president. If this is important to you, especially the continuation of the citizenship issue, then it is better to have your child born in the USA. You never know, your son may complaint to you in the future for denying his rights. Best of luck!

A president has to be natural born citizen...meaning born a citizen, and not naturalized. Even if born aborad...eligible to become a president.
 
Actually, I just looked up the definition and it says "born in the US (or US territory) from two US citizens, wait, but Obama's father wasn't a USC.
Well, I guess we need to find the exact definition....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I guess we need to find the exact definition....

This is what the Constitution says:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

I'm not sure that "natural born citizen" has ever been formally argued before a federal court. If *I* had to guess I would say it means citizen at birth, either via birth on US soil via the 14th Amendment, or birth to US citizens abroad.
 
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States *

* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, I just looked up the definition and it says "born in the US (or US territory) from two US citizens, wait, but Obama's father wasn't a USC.
Well, I guess we need to find the exact definition....

We understand that you like McCain, but US citizenship is jus soli, or "by birth", and being born in Hawaii, like Obama was, makes one a natural born citizen. It matters very little whether both his parents are US citizens or not.
 
What if Obama was born 3 years ahead when Hawaii was not even considered to be a US territory or a state, then would Obama still be able to afford the benefit of standing for election for the president?

We understand that you like McCain, but US citizenship is jus soli, or "by birth", and being born in Hawaii, like Obama was, makes one a natural born citizen. It matters very little whether both his parents are US citizens or not.
 
What if Obama was born 3 years ahead when Hawaii was not even considered to be a US territory or a state, then would Obama still be able to afford the benefit of standing for election for the president?

Hawaii has been a US territory since 1898. It was given limited self-governance in 1900, and then became a state in 1959. There's a continuity between those two statuses, and there's no question on the validity of Obama running for President.

There's some controversy about someone being born in the Panama Canal Zone, however. ;)
 
Thanks! I did not know about it.
I thought the queen or king was in charge at that time. When I was in Hawaii, I was told that the sub-original (or whatever you called them) were pretty upset of the occupation by Americans.
 
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Congress added laws to determine who become a citizen at birth under various circumstances, but I don't think it makes sense for Congress to be able to determine who is a "natural born" citizen. For children born outside the US, the law sets all sorts of arbitrary conditions on things like the age of the mother, whether the parents were married, and their length of residence in the US. If we are to accept the somewhat absurd idea that citizenship is something that can be bestowed by nature, Congress shouldn't have the authority to interfere by placing those various conditions on the parents.

If taken to the Supreme Court, the only definition of natural born that is safe is being born on US soil, because it is given in the Constitution. The next safest thing is born to 2 US citizen parents. But for all the rest of the scenarios, I think they're either going to say that all births outside the US to one citizen parent would give natural born citizenship, or none do. Because if "nature" can grant citizenship, nature wouldn't care about things like how many years the mother lived in the US after the age of 14, or have different rules for births before or after 1986.

If they say that nobody born outside the US to one US citizen parent has "natural born" citizenship, it doesn't mean their citizenship would become invalidated. It just means their citizenship was granted by Congress, rather than being "natural born".

The main idea behind the "natural born" clause was to protect against enemy powers that might get one of their own into US politics and somehow rise to become president. But the natural born clause still doesn't prevent them from arranging to have a baby born in the US, take the child to another country to indoctrinate them until 20 or 25, then send them back to the US to start navigating the political landscape.

Currently the Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old. Before "natural born citizen" is ever challenged in a high court, I hope they will pass an Amendment to remove "natural born" and change it to something like "been a citizen for 35 years". Having to wait for 35 years is a much stronger defense against enemy powers than being "natural born"; by the time 35 years have passed, either the plot would be exposed, or the person doesn't want to do it any more, or the foreign individuals behind the plan may either be dead or have lost their influence.
 
We understand that you like McCain, but US citizenship is jus soli, or "by birth", and being born in Hawaii, like Obama was, makes one a natural born citizen. It matters very little whether both his parents are US citizens or not.

I just thought that natural-born citizen meant born on US soil from two US parents. In that case neither candidates would have qualified, but obviously it wasn't the right definition.
A natural-born citizen is just a US citizen at birth, whether born in the US (like Obama) or whether born abroad from two US parents (like McCain).
 
I just thought that natural-born citizen meant born on US soil from two US parents. In that case neither candidates would have qualified, but obviously it wasn't the right definition.

No, a natural born citizen is a person born in the US. It doesn't matter what his/her parents are at all, and they could even be illegally staying in the US. However, the definition of "in the US" is open to some interpretation whether that includes all US territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, etc. By acts of Congress, almost all the people born in these territories are US citizens by birth, except a very small number of them in American Samoa.

A natural-born citizen is just a US citizen at birth, whether born in the US (like Obama) or whether born abroad from two US parents (like McCain).

Right, but one can be born a US citizen even from one parent if the circumstances warrant it (the parents divorce, one of them is not a US citizen, etc) if the proper paperwork is filed. I have a friend who was born in one of the air bases in Germany, and he's considered a US citizen by birth and is eligible to run for the Presidency. Whether he can or even wants to... is another question :p
 
No, a natural born citizen is a person born in the US.
There is no official definition of natural born citizen. "Citizen at birth" isn't the same as "natural born citizen". Well, maybe they are the same but no court has decided if those two are the same yet.

The only thing for sure is that people who obtained citizenship after their birthday are not natural born citizens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top