Michele11

Hi there, I don't know if someone has already post anything about it but I thought that some may find interesting the changes in the physical residence for children of U.S citizen mother born abroad to acquire citizenship from the united states.

Basically the supreme court concluded that demanding only 1 year of physical residence to mothers and 5 years to fathers to be able to pass citizenship to their offspring was a case of sex/gender discrimination.

So now the rule of 5 years applies to both mothers and fathers.

This all came as a result of the lawsuit Morales-Santana vs Lynch, this a case that I was trying to follow closely cause I my self 2 years ago when my brother was trying to pass citizenship to his daughters born abroad and was helping him with all the paperwork for the CRBA and read about all the requirements, thought to my self, wow how come if I was the mother they would only require me 1 year but my brother requires 5 years, I found it quite discriminating to be honest and not fair.. by the way just to add my bother did fail to proof the 5 whole years and CRBA was denied.

And it does affect me in the sense that I´m a U.S born citizen but my mom and dad left the U.S when I was a baby, I´m 29 and just return to live in the U.S less than 3 years ago, so basically if I go back home and have a baby abroad, my child would not be a U.S citizen automatically.. on a personal note, not that I had figure out if I´m going to stay indefinitely in USA, I ain´t going no where until I fulfill my 5 years of physical residence, I want to prevent future headaches about this.

I´m gonna try to attached a link for those of you who may be interest in reading about Morales-Santana vs lynch but basically he has been in the U.S for around 35 years since he was a teen, son of a non U.S citizen mother and U.S citizen father, got in trouble with the law and of course the unites states has no interest of letting him staying here, they place him on deportation and he file a lawsuit claiming u.s citizenship and that this law was a case of gender discrimination, cause his father fail to fulfill the 5 years requirements by 20 days.

I was reading online that this may not be final cause now this is gonna go to the congress, but many are skeptical about how long this is gonna take to be address in the congress, so for now 5 years for all.

Sessions v. Morales-Santana: Ruth Bader Ginsburg defends gender equality.

P.S this is my first time posting and I think the link I tried to attached above is not gonna work properly, I apologize.

ian-mstm

This is really interesting - but, to clarify... the existing law affected unwed mothers and unwed fathers for a child born outside the US. It's a subtle but important distinction. Your comments make it sound as though it affected all mothers and fathers regardless of marital status.

Ian

Michele11

Yes, you are correct. Thank you.

WEBlue

This is a fascinating case for a variety of reasons. Firstly, at the time Morales-Santana was born (1962), the disparity in the requirements for the unwed USC father & unwed USC mother to pass US citizenship to a child born off USA soil was even wider--it was 10 years US residency, with 5 of those years after the age of 14 for the unwed USC father, and only 1 year--total-- US residency for the unwed USC mother! That huge difference obviously reflected customs & concerns of the era (1940).

Subsequent changes to the law (1986) lowered the unwed USC unwed father's requirement to 5 years, 2 years of which must fall after age 14... and left alone the unwed USC mother's requirement of 1 year.

Yes, I'm truly curious about how this particular congress will deal with the question of how to "equalize" such a gender disparity. Two knotty problems that go to the heart of today's news headlines--immigration & gender equality--all wrapped up in one complex package. Not to mention the issue of "equalization of capability" of wed versus unwed parents to pass on their USC to their children born abroad....

Michele11

I found it very interesting my self too, and 2 things suprise me, 1) the way this law has been around for so long, you would think that considering how U.S are always trying to be careful with gender discrimination issues, this disparity in this law still existed until now and 2) the 5 years for all results by the supreme court, very naive I tought that the obvious result was going to be, 1 year for both, unwed mothers and fathers.

And I'm not the only one, many inmigration lawyers and articles has been written about this matter, suprise by the results on the supreme court.

I guess we all at the end going to have to wait for the final results, but I have a feeling that the most diplomatic ruling by the congress is going to be 5 years for all, which indeed it does break the gender disparity.

WEBlue

This NY Times article from last week seems to come to the same conclusion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/o...one-share&_r=0

So this equalises the requirement right across the board--5 years for all USC parents, married or unmarried, male or female....