E2Brutus

I will be applying for my third E2 renewal early next year, and one difference is that I now have a US citizen son. Do you think that the criteria for renewal will be lower given that denying it would banish a US citizen to a life of tea and crumpets?

My business has evolved and I am paying more tax than ever, but I no longer directly employ anyone - it is all 1099s and brokerage fees on property transactions. I could buy a business with some warm bodies this year, but I just hate managing people!

Noorah101

Nope. Your personal life doesn't play into it at all.

Rene​​​​​​​

E2Brutus

Yes, it is an odd quirk that the US gave my son a US passport just because he was born here, so no weight given to it. Still worse things than being raised a Brit if it comes to it!

tht

It’s not an odd quirk, it’s the law, and not unique to the US:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ht-citizenship

I’m sure you knew about it before your son was born and could have left the country to avoid it. And he is likely also a UKC so it’s not like he can’t move back with you if your visa is not renewed…

People use the “anchor baby” to move here… many years down the line you could do the same… there is weight given to it… when he is 21….

Also I would be surprised if you were “given” a passport… you applied for a passport for a USC, paid the fee and waited weeks or months for it…

As your thread subject notes, as a USC your son will have a “Duty” to sign up for selective service when he is 18…
https://www.sss.gov

And pay tax’s in worldwide income…. Maybe he can be UK PM like orris Johnston was… he was born in the US…

S Folinsky

The definitive case on birthright citizenship is Wong Kim Ark. Interesting reading.

S Folinsky

Recent discussion in Fitisemanu v United States re birthright citizenship and American Samoa. BTW, non-citizen nationals are treated like lawful permanent residents for purpose of immigrating family. Also, they have the right to take up residence in the US and then seek immediate naturalization.

Pulaski

My understanding of the origins of the jus soli basis of US citizenship is that it was a by-product of the abolition of slavery, i.e. that everyone born in the US was, by birth, a US citizen, without exception.

Perhaps you could comment, for the edification of the forum and myself?

newacct

Even before the abolition of slavery, there was jus soli in English common law inherited by the states (it just didn't apply to slaves). The UK had jus soli up until 1982.

Pulaski

Right, but previously "it was common law, that's just the way it was done", and as you pointed out, the UK was able to change that fairly easily, but as a result of the 13th amendment to the US constitution, the one that abolished slavery, it would be extremely difficult to change jus soli in the US.

S Folinsky

Following the US Civil War (let’s not talk about the name of that conflict) there were three Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution- 13, 14 and 15. 13 abolished slavery. 15 prohibited limitation of right to vote on account of race, color or condition of prior servitude. 14 defined citizenship and rights thereof to due process and equal protection of the law.
Jus Soli was expressed in the first sentence of the 14th.

Since its inception, citizenship has been ensconced in the text of the constitution. That said, the term was not defined. As discussed in Wong Kim Ark, jus soli was pretty much the rule as a matter of practice and common law. Then in 1856, the Supreme Court issued the infamous Dred Scott decision which denied the rights of citizenship to slaves. Dred Scott was eliminated by the 14th.

In 1873, the Supremes issued what are known as the Slaughterhouse Cases. They had to do with the regulation of slaughterhouses by the City of New Orleans. It was held that the Amendments were meant to extend only to the rights of the freed Negro slaves, not to local government police powers. The effect of the Slaughterhouse cases was limited piecemeal over the years and when the City of Chicago relied in part on Slaughterhouse to prohibit possession of handguns, the case was finally expressly overruled in 2010.

So, when the Chinese exclusion act came into being, it was argued that the citizenship of children of Chinese immigrants was not within the scope of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Another topic of discussion is that the British Constitution exists, but is not codified. The US Constitution is codified. The 13 Colonies opted out of the British Constitution as a result of the Revolution. (The Declaration of Indepenence seems to acknowledge this - after listing the grievances against George III, it has a paragraph as a grievance against Parliament for joining in with that dastardly George III.)

So after the Revolution, there was a confederation of the 13 colonies. It did not work too well. So a convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation. That convention exceeded the scope of its authority and came out with the written Constitution. A topic beyond the scope of this post.

The aftermath of the Revolution left the British Constitutional Monarchy in place but the U.S. ended with a codified Constitution creating a new Federal Government coexisting with the individual states.

E2Brutus

Thank you for all the interesting comments on this odd quirk of the law.

Wong Kim Ark paved the way for my son, and now I shall pave the way for E2 applicants!

In parallel I am researching a possible relocation to Spain as that seems to be tax advantaged under the Beckham law.

morpeth

Were not native Americans also excluded from birthright citizenship in the USA ?

On this day, all American Indians made United States citizens | Constitution Center

S Folinsky

The Wong Kim Ark opinion discusses that and cite Elk v Wilkins. The 14th Amendment definition citizenship requires not only birth in the US but “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That clause underlies many discussions of birthright citizenship.

In regards to that clause, an interesting case is Nikoi v Attorney General.