Jump to content

Hey let's make it more difficult for children born overseas of two American citizens to become citizens. Even if the parents are a Troop or government employee


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

I feel like I need an example to truly grasp the context of this.

 

Like, my mother-in-law was born during the 60s in Okinawa, Japan on a military base. Under this rule, she wouldn't be a US citizen?

She could still be, it depends on the exact details. Or her parents might have had to just through hoops for her citizenship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

She could still be, it depends on the exact details. Or her parents might have had to just through hoops for her citizenship.

 

Her father was stationed there in the military, and her mother lived on base with him.

 

I think they moved back when my MiL was 2-3 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently this policy update meant something far narrower than originally reported. Seems more like general incompetence in the explanation of what the policy update did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Nope and neither would John McCain... he was born on a military base in Panama I think.

The policy update wouldn’t affect either of these cases. It’s a very narrow set of situations where automatic citizenship wouldn’t be granted. I think DoD said it was 100 or so cases annually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Apparently this policy update meant something far narrower than originally reported. Seems more like general incompetence in the explanation of what the policy update did.

Apologies for the laziness, but is the incompetence in the drafting of the 8/28 Policy Alert, or in how the verbiage of the policy change (which might have significantly broader implications than originally intended)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, GoldenTongue said:

Apologies for the laziness, but is the incompetence in the drafting of the 8/28 Policy Alert, or in how the verbiage of the policy change (which might have significantly broader implications than originally intended)?

The policy alert itself is lacking in clarity which lead to confusion over what exactly was being addressed. The actual change is more clear. But it shouldn’t take a genius to see how the change could be misunderstood removed from the context.

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...