Jump to content

Trump Denies Citizenship to Military Babies


Recommended Posts

https://taskandpurpose.com/military-children-born-abroad-citizenship

Children of US troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship, Trump administration says

August 28, 2019 at 03:47 PM

 

..... Really??? Deployed troops kids won’t be citizens?? If this doesn’t lose the next election .... the other party may as well just fold up and quit. 

70622A34-63A8-4013-824C-ED4314D13AD7.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you can't properly Burn This Bitch To The Ground without burning some soldiers, sailors and airmen. But at least we don't have Hillary. Not sure how the elk are going to spin this but it's sure gonna be funny. Probably some concern, we don't know all the facts, it's not going to affect that many, the usual. If only the Democrats don't nominate a Democrat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is..... These babies will generally be from places where people are darker skinned than Denmark, and we all know what that means.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Thing is..... These babies will generally be from places where people are darker skinned than Denmark, and we all know what that means.......

Norway is the apparent ideal gene pool.  

Really, If the "places" where the baby comes are the same as usual, they are definitely from a place where people are darker skinned than Denmark...the uteri of US service women.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Norway is the apparent ideal gene pool.  

Really, If the "places" where the baby comes are the same as usual, they are definitely from a place where people are darker skinned than Denmark...the uteri of US service women.

Likely most are from the jizz of the guys...

 

just another way for ‘merika (Fuck Yeah) to shirk her responsibilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

WTF?

This is a new low :(

Probably retroactive revenge against the "not born in the USA " John McCain.

If suggest you read the updated story rather than the BS headline posted here.  It is simply making the USCIS policy the same as the one already in place at the state department.  It does not impact the vast majority of military and government employees 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, The Joker said:

If suggest you read the updated story rather than the BS headline posted here.  It is simply making the USCIS policy the same as the one already in place at the state department.  It does not impact the vast majority of military and government employees 

Who does it impact then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Joker said:

If suggest you read the updated story rather than the BS headline posted here.  It is simply making the USCIS policy the same as the one already in place at the state department.  It does not impact the vast majority of military and government employees 

Yes! You are correct. The story, and similar stories by multiple  media sources were not descriptive of the actual policy changes. 

Why?? 

The various college educated professional journalists simply reported what they each clearly understood. 

Huh??

The spokesmen who briefed them totally  had it wrong and gave out bad information.

the journalists simply repeated that which they were told.

Was it planned that way?? I don’t know.

I fo know the actual new restrictions will cause grief for some people who are serving our country.

Let me use an example of “the other way.”. :

Starting today, any public employee who adds a child to his or her family will also obtain full citizenship for that child.  We don’t care if the child is adopted or a newborn by a public employee or spouse of that public employee. America will support those families by granting full citizenship to the child.

 

note: I sm not advocating for such a plan but you can certainly understand the new government position is at the opposite end of the spectrum. 

I am not certain why the administration wants to alienate some of our servicemen who might be stationed overseas but the policy damn sure is not friendly 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Donnie's angry because they won't let him do what he really wants to: cancel citizenship and deport Democrats in possession  of funny foreign names, female genitalia and brown skin.

Compared to some of the shit things your shit president has done, this is only a mid-range outrage.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you expect from a fucking draft dodger.

He loves our armed forces,

He's illegal wife gets hers and so do her parents , but our soliders kids don't , WTF.

actually the orginal trump (Fredr Trumpr) came here illegal after being a embezzler and drafter dodger from his motherland guess the rot apple ddidn't fall far from that tree.   

He was also approaching the age of eligibility for conscription to military service in the Imperial German Army. He quickly decided to emigrate to the United States, later saying, "I agreed with my mother that I should go to America."[3]:30 Years later, his family members said that he departed secretly at night, leaving his mother a note.[3]:30–31 As a result of fleeing mandatory conscription required of all citizens a royal decree was later issued banishing him from the country.[16][12]

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

As usual, a complete overblown reaction by those afflicted with TDS.. 

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/08/28/heres-whos-affected-new-citizenship-policy-children-troops-serving-overseas.html

And you guys accuse Fox of being less than factual.....

The categories presented by Kooch do not look to me like they cover children born overseas to children of non-citizen members of the military. It looks like he is waving his hands a lot and shaking some straw men around, but not talking about the specific issue at hand. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I saw the usual rightwing bullshiting about TDS from your boy Jeffreaux. And I see, once again, you and Jeffreaux and the Joke using the Trump administrations utter fucking incompetence as a wedge for your culture war to enable Trump. So can the fucking outrage.

And once again, you're too lazy and intellectually corrupt to consider that something you accepted without verification could be mistaken, and conflate pointing out that mistake as support for something which you oppose.   No outrage jackass - just pointing out (again) how myopic and intentionally ignorant you are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The categories presented by Kooch do not look to me like they cover children born overseas to children of non-citizen members of the military. It looks like he is waving his hands a lot and shaking some straw men around, but not talking about the specific issue at hand. 

I think if you're going to have this sink in you're going to have to explain it a bit more.  It's a little abstract for me.

So are you saying that a non-citizen member of our military has a kid (is that kid a citizen or not?  I really don't know) then that kid has another kid, that second kid isn't a citizen?

The way you wrote it is murky.

It appears at this time that about 65,000 non-citizens serve in our military.

If I understand this correctly, if some of those 65,000 non-citizens have children overseas, then those children are NOT citizens of the United States, because the parents are not citizens, and the child was not born in the US.

This doesn't just cover service members, but also government officials as well.

Supposedly this will negatively affect 100 kids a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

How's that support for Andy Ngo looking these days Mr. Ironic.

One can piont out the error without bullshit like this

 

 

I was specifically responding to this bullshit and I'll always love laughing at it.

You can laugh all ya want - I think he was right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

I think if you're going to have this sink in you're going to have to explain it a bit more.  It's a little abstract for me.

So are you saying that a non-citizen member of our military has a kid (is that kid a citizen or not?  I really don't know) then that kid has another kid, that second kid isn't a citizen?

The way you wrote it is murky.

It appears at this time that about 65,000 non-citizens serve in our military.

If I understand this correctly, if some of those 65,000 non-citizens have children overseas, then those children are NOT citizens of the United States, because the parents are not citizens, and the child was not born in the US.

This doesn't just cover service members, but also government officials as well. (Since the next logical question would be why service personnel are having kids..)

Supposedly this will negatively affect 100 kids a year.

As I read it, if an active duty non-citizen has a kid in the US with baby-momma #1, the kid is a citizen. If the non-citizen impregnates a little hottie(baby momma #2) in a brown country, sorry, that kid stays put.

Sorry boys, if we allow non-citizens in the armed forces, and of course we do, it should be an accelerated pass to citizenship, including their spawn.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

I think if you're going to have this sink in you're going to have to explain it a bit more.  It's a little abstract for me.

So are you saying that a non-citizen member of our military has a kid (is that kid a citizen or not?  I really don't know) then that kid has another kid, that second kid isn't a citizen?

The way you wrote it is murky.

Now I'm confused. 

 

Okay, here's what Kooch says: “This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens.” 

Kooch has made a circular argument.  He should have just said "this only affects children who we no longer deem citizens at birth." 

The article goes on to give two examples and an explanation that shows why people like me think this is bullshit:

Quote

Examples of that situation include:

  • A U.S. service member and partner, or a dual-military couple, stationed in South Korea, who adopt a local South Korean child; or,
  • A non-citizen U.S. service member and partner, or non-citizen dual-military couple, who have a child while serving in Germany.

In either case, the children would no longer be considered residents (based on their parents’ established U.S. residency) and must apply for citizenship, rather than have it guaranteed, as it would have been guaranteed in the past.

See the bolded section.  Is this not the change that people are talking about?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

I think if you're going to have this sink in you're going to have to explain it a bit more.  It's a little abstract for me.

So are you saying that a non-citizen member of our military has a kid (is that kid a citizen or not?  I really don't know) then that kid has another kid, that second kid isn't a citizen?

The way you wrote it is murky.

It appears at this time that about 65,000 non-citizens serve in our military.

If I understand this correctly, if some of those 65,000 non-citizens have children overseas, then those children are NOT citizens of the United States, because the parents are not citizens, and the child was not born in the US.

This doesn't just cover service members, but also government officials as well. (Since the next logical question would be why service personnel are having kids..)

Supposedly this will negatively affect 100 kids a year.

why would service personnel have kids overseas? Are you kidding me?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Joker said:

If suggest you read the updated story rather than the BS headline posted here.  It is simply making the USCIS policy the same as the one already in place at the state department.  It does not impact the vast majority of military and government employees 

Well, gosh, when you put it that way, pfffft, no big thing, just a few guys and gals who are willing to give their lives to the country....a bit of fear keeps everybody in line anyway, right?

What’s next, Russian nationals given an invite to serve?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Now I'm confused. 

 

Okay, here's what Kooch says: “This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens.” 

Kooch has made a circular argument.  He should have just said "this only affects children who we no longer deem citizens at birth." 

The article goes on to give two examples and an explanation that shows why people like me think this is bullshit:

See the bolded section.  Is this not the change that people are talking about?  

It's a damn weasely way to fuck over a few more kids.

Why does the GOP hate children?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

why would service personnel have kids overseas? Are you kidding me?

And here I thought the military underwent sterilization as part of service.  

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

why would service personnel have kids overseas? Are you kidding me?

I know several that had kids in Germany in the '80s.  We're not talking dropping a kid in a war zone.  Maybe Jeff knows the numbers but I'n sure we have 10s of thousands of troops stationed overseas.  Ramstein has a ton just as an example.  A military family living overseas is by no means a rarity.  

If you were just joking, use the font.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

why would service personnel have kids overseas? Are you kidding me?

When people talk about 'service personnel', they generally think about active military - boots on the ground type thing.  They rarely think about all the support personnel or administrative personnel who essentially live and work a 'normal' 9-5 job and may have their significant other travel with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

I know several that had kids in Germany in the '80s.  We're not talking dropping a kid in a war zone.  Maybe Jeff knows the numbers but I'n sure we have 10s of thousands of troops stationed overseas.  Ramstein has a ton just as an example.  A military family living overseas is by no means a rarity.  

If you were just joking, use the font.  

My bad, I misunderstood a post above. Of course service personnel have kids overseas. I've been to Olangapo, when the base was still active....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

It's a damn weasely way to fuck over a few more kids.

Why does the GOP hate children?

Why don’t they (think Trump) want birth control?  

Its an old school sacrifice thing?  Just scratching the surface though.

(don’t google children sacrificed to stop bad weather El Niño.  It’s heart breaking how cruel some people can be....)

As we descend into madness.  I’d use the winky emoji, but this is beyond the Brazilian photo with our distant genetic relatives huddled together in the middle of devastation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

As I read it, if an active duty non-citizen has a kid in the US with baby-momma #1, the kid is a citizen. If the non-citizen impregnates a little hottie(baby momma #2) in a brown country, sorry, that kid stays put.

Sorry boys, if we allow non-citizens in the armed forces, and of course we do, it should be an accelerated pass to citizenship, including their spawn.

How do you read that to mean that the kid born OCONUS to a non-citizen parent stays put?   I read it as the time spent living OCONUS doesn't apply to CONUS residency requirements.   I haven't read the entire policy - so if I'm mistaken in my understanding, I'm happy to be corrected. 

Edited to add - Completely agree w/your last sentence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

How do you read that to mean that the kid born OCONUS to a non-citizen parent stays put?   I read it as the time spent living OCONUS doesn't apply to CONUS residency requirements.   I haven't read the entire policy - so if I'm mistaken in my understanding, I'm happy to be corrected. 

That's how I read it, but I agree with Raz'r that there should be no differentiation between a CONUS/OCONUS birthplace for that child.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

How do you read that to mean that the kid born OCONUS to a non-citizen parent stays put?   I read it as the time spent living OCONUS doesn't apply to CONUS residency requirements.   I haven't read the entire policy - so if I'm mistaken in my understanding, I'm happy to be corrected. 

Edited to add - Completely agree w/your last sentence. 

How do you read it any other way? Old policy, instant citizenhip. New policy, go through sponsorship/immigration process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

Children of US troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship, Trump administration says

If you want to know what Trump will do next, ask yourself, "What's the biggest dick move he can make?"  Same with McConnell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Shite please?

there's more sources further up the thread. Here's one:

https://reason.com/2019/08/29/military-kids-born-abroad-are-not-being-denied-citizenship/?fbclid=IwAR1qc_xdH5aatwokDsvp8W_mmv57kWWSF8TyKlGu4VuFdjXvXd4u7Vt70-I

Quote

The change will not apply to children born to any U.S. citizens serving in the military or otherwise working abroad. It will apply only in cases of foreign adoption by U.S. citizen parents, or children born to parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. A Department of Defense spokesperson said the shift would affect about 100 children annually. 

Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli clarified that the policy "does NOT impact birthright citizenship." 

It also does not mean that the children will be denied citizenship, just that parents have to submit an application. The change was made to bring the definition of residence in the immigration law in line with State Department guidance, USCIS toldCNN.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A. General Requirements: Genetic, Legitimated, or Adopted Child Automatically Acquiring Citizenship after Birth1 A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen when all of the following conditions have been met on or after February 27, 2001

 The child has at least one parent, including an adoptive parent3 who is a U.S. citizen by birth or through naturalization; The child is under 18 years of age;

The child is a lawful permanent resident (LPR);4 and The child is residing5 in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent.

Mil and Gov couples abroad do NOT meet these requirements. Until now, they got a pass and were assumed to be US residents even though stationed in Germany or BFE.

Now that is NOT the case:

Effective October 29, 2019, children residing abroad with their U.S. citizen parents who are U.S. government employees or members of the U.S. armed forces stationed abroad are not considered to be residing in the United States for acquisition of citizenship. Similarly, leave taken in the United States while stationed abroad is not considered residing in the United States even if the person is staying in property he or she owns. Therefore, U.S. citizen parents who are residing outside the United States with children who are not U.S. citizens should apply for U.S. citizenship on behalf of their children under INA 3228, and must complete the process before the child’s 18th birthday.9 The child of a member of the U.S. armed forces accompanying his or her parent abroad on official orders may be eligible to complete all aspects of the naturalization proceedings abroad. This includes interviews, filings, oaths, ceremonies, or other proceedings relating to naturalization.10

>>>

>>>

I would advise anyone to do this application about on day 2 and well before the child can aquire any kind of paper trail for the application to be denied. Also note that if anything goes wrong, your child is a citizen of NOWHERE unless you applied for him/her/undecided to be a citizen of the place you are stationed, which is probably not going to be possible.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

A. General Requirements: Genetic, Legitimated, or Adopted Child Automatically Acquiring Citizenship after Birth1 A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen when all of the following conditions have been met on or after February 27, 2001

 The child has at least one parent, including an adoptive parent3 who is a U.S. citizen by birth or through naturalization; The child is under 18 years of age;

The child is a lawful permanent resident (LPR);4 and The child is residing5 in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent.

Mil and Gov couples abroad do NOT meet these requirements. Until now, they got a pass and were assumed to be US residents even though stationed in Germany or BFE.

Now that is NOT the case:

Effective October 29, 2019, children residing abroad with their U.S. citizen parents who are U.S. government employees or members of the U.S. armed forces stationed abroad are not considered to be residing in the United States for acquisition of citizenship. Similarly, leave taken in the United States while stationed abroad is not considered residing in the United States even if the person is staying in property he or she owns. Therefore, U.S. citizen parents who are residing outside the United States with children who are not U.S. citizens should apply for U.S. citizenship on behalf of their children under INA 3228, and must complete the process before the child’s 18th birthday.9 The child of a member of the U.S. armed forces accompanying his or her parent abroad on official orders may be eligible to complete all aspects of the naturalization proceedings abroad. This includes interviews, filings, oaths, ceremonies, or other proceedings relating to naturalization.10

>>>

>>>

I would advise anyone to do this application about on day 2 and well before the child can aquire any kind of paper trail for the application to be denied. Also note that if anything goes wrong, your child is a citizen of NOWHERE unless you applied for him/her/undecided to be a citizen of the place you are stationed, which is probably not going to be possible.

Seems like a bit of fuckery for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

This part baffles me. A US Citizen, going to a home they own, isn't counted as being in the US?

not when it comes to brown babies!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

This part baffles me. A US Citizen, going to a home they own, isn't counted as being in the US?

They are defining it thusly - if you are on orders to be stationed in Sicily or Yokosuka Japan, then that is where you are "residing" even if you happen to come home to the continental US on leave.

The one thing that seems really clear is that this creates two classes of US Citizen, one who has established residence by these definitions and another who has not.  So if you are born in CONUS and acquire birthright citizenship, but are not considered to have established residency by these criteria, then you are a US Citizen but cannot transmit citizenship to your child as the US Citizen who has established residency can.  (There are a series of hypothetical scenarios discussed in the document, I encourage all to read it.) Seems to have the potential for legal challenge.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Looks like it has the potential to make children stateless.

I'll ask the elk again, why does the GOP hate children?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who are PAID to make the press releases are PAID to communicate .

The fact we have 60 posts from grown adults describing various levels of misunderstanding simply says, “The people who are bring PAID to inform us are not doing their jobs.”

Whose fault is that? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:
 

Let me see if I understand this, we have already deported service members who are not citizens but were promised citizenship. We have kids with cancer who are not treated for cancer while they wait to be deported and America refuses to even give them flu shots. All while you press the importance of believing anything the government says

Do you even realize how gullible you are?.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But that narrow change is not what you posted about and was not what all the initial outrage was about.  Because not a single one of your cunts even bothered to dig into the actual policy until I posted the link to what the change actually said.  It was pure and simple TDS.

So you're welcome.  My job here is done.  At least you cunts are now arguing about the actual policy change and not what you thought it was in the first place.  

Edit to add:  Pointing out TDS != defending shitstain.

On the upside, the repeated tantrums does reinforce the idea that you shouldn't believe anything without corroboration.  The best thing about the Trump administration is that wittingly or not, he's exposed the hypocrites, from across the political spectrum. 

Relative to this particular story, I think the rule change is petty.  The most interesting thing for me personally was to learn about the seemingly byzantine layers of carve outs and exceptions.  Someday, maybe we'll get around to just passing laws again and we can simplify the process.  Maybe there is a second thing the Trump administration has achieved - a clear demonstration that governance by "I have a pen and I'm not afraid to use it" selective enforcement and application is pretty capricious.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

The people who are PAID to make the press releases are PAID to communicate .

The fact we have 60 posts from grown adults describing various levels of misunderstanding simply says, “The people who are bring PAID to inform us are not doing their jobs.”

Whose fault is that? 

 

Who the cunt are you and what the cunt did you do with Gouvernail?  That post actually was valid and made sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BrickTopHarry said:

Document is here for those who want to pore through it, language is a bit opaque:

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/policymanual/updates/20190828-ResidenceForCitizenship.pdf

Relying on the actual documents instead of what someone wrote or said about the documents is clearly TDS. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Let me see if I understand this, we have already deported service members who are not citizens but were promised citizenship. We have kids with cancer who are not treated for cancer while they wait to be deported and America refuses to even give them flu shots. All while you press the importance of believing anything the government says

Do you even realize how gullible you are?.

Ha! that's funny, clearly you've reacted to the wrong post. 

So I post a cite to misleading information from a media outlet (NBC), and you chaste  me for trusting government? 

Ahh OK, sure, whatever you think.

You are if anything amusing... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

Ha! that's funny, clearly you've reacted to the wrong post. 

So I post a cite to misleading information from a media outlet (NBC), and you chaste  me for trusting government? 

Ahh OK, sure, whatever you think.

You are if anything amusing... 

I didn't react to the wrong post.

You posted crap from the Daily Cholera and expected us to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

You have to be supremely stupid to do that here. But then, maybe you're just lobbying mom to bring you a cookie to the basement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...