Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
I don't know that's necessarily the case. (It should be, but whether it would be, I don't know.) It seems that the question might turn on whether the child in born on land under US sovereignty. At least according to the Wiki article cited (usual disclaimers, I know), "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
The way it looks to me, though, is I only know of two kinds of citizens -- natural born and naturalized. Working from the assumption that he is a citizen, if he's not naturalized, then doesn't he have to be natural born?
I'm glad I don't do immigration law.
|
Let me get this straight, you are saying that Military Instalations, Consular, and Embassies are not considered part of the United States? I do beleive they are considered American soil therefore Americans.
In other words, anyone born outside of the Continental or States such as Alaska and Hawaii would be in doubt even though they are born of US citizens are in doubt?
What a smack in the face for a man who while serving his country became a prisoner of war in Nam.
Threaded Mode
