civilservant

You either are or are not a USC. There is no 'technically'. A US passport is just one example of proof of such. It's certainly not unpunishable in law, even if if goes unpunished in reality - 8 USC § 1185 (b).

As a former long time member, Ian-mstm, would say 'most people use technically when they mean actually'

It is incumbent on anyone to comply with the law on entry requirements to any country, including ones own.

Jerseygirl

A USC must enter and leave the US using a US PP. On the other hand a USC cannot be refused entry into the US. They can however be detained for a while at immigration and fined. The main problem is checking in for the flight, as a USC is not eligible to use the VWP or a US visa. A British citizen who is neither a USC or US PR must either present proof of the VWP or a US visa.

scrubbedexpat096

and therein lies the problem. It is up to the individual to prove this status, if you do not have means to prove this then technically you are not a USC.

christmasoompa

That's not correct. Lots of people are citizens of countries but have no proof of it - for example, my grandparents were British citizens, they never had passports but they were still citizens. My godson is a Canadian citizen just because his mother was born there, he doesn't have a Canadian passport or any documented proof of it, but he's still a citizen and could get a Canadian passport anytime he likes to add to his British one. Having no proof of citizenship doesn't take that citizenship away.

If one is a citizen, then there are two choices I guess - one is to comply with the laws of that citizenship (including entering the US on a US passport, and filing tax returns etc), or to renounce that citizenship if they don't wish to do those things.

scrubbedexpat096

How is it not correct? The US has no way of proving/knowing you are a USC unless you provide them with the relevant information?


Thats the problem with demanding your citizens enter with a US passport. Its not that easy to get one.



Anyway this is taking the thread a little too far off topic.

As above you can register the CRBA with the embassy and apply for a US passport at the same time. Reporting birth abroad

rather difficult to get an appointment with the embassy at the moment though!

tht

You are, you just don’t have what means to prove it. I think what you are trying to say is the US Government may not have a record of that citizen.

And that’s why it’s important to register a foreign birth of a Citizen.

scrubbedexpat096

The US government have absolutely no means of tracking birth abroad, hence why fhe law is pointless when applied in this way

civilservant

It’s not the only example of a difficult to apply US Federal law. Dare I say the UK also has a multitude of examples.

tht

They have exactly that… it’s called the CRBA:

https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...th-abroad.html

Now maybe you don’t like it, but that is a different story.

S Folinsky

Beg to disagree. Once had a client who was an AmCit at birth. He was born in 1945 in Mexico to a US born mother who had been widowed 18 months previous. Mom had been living in Mexico since two years of age. When he was 19 years old, he obtained an immigrant visa the child of a US citizen. Some years later he was convicted of a crime and spent 7 years in prison. Upon completion of his sentence, he was taken before an Immigration Judge and ordered deported to Mexico. He waited in Mexico for three days before coming back into the United States.

He then consults with an immigration lawyer and we say, you have been an American citizen since birth. We file for a Certificate of Citizenship with documentation. We use his existing A-number. Former INS interviews him and requests a copy of Mom's US passport application which we provide in due course.

In the meanwhile, a scandal comes to light wherein criminal deportees have returned to the US, a Federal felony and then continue to report to their California state parole officers. So, INS rounds up over 170 people and bring criminal charges for being an alien found in the US after deportation.

At the first hearing I approach the AUSA in court. AUSA wants to know if we contend "it wasn't him." I respond that they've got the right guy. AUSA wants to know if we contend he wasn't deported. Oh, he was definitely deported. Then what possible defense do you have? He is an American citizen. Don't you think you should inform INS? Here is a copy of the entire application we have pending before INS. They have everything already. AUSA gives me a one page declaration from an INS investigator that he had thoroughly reviewed the file and determined client was an alien who had been deported and was found in the US. Let's say the magistrate was not amused.

After the criminal charges were dismissed, INS then reinstituted deportation proceeding. Fortunately, the Government attorney in court was the MOST knowledgeable attorney on the subject (the inhouse expert). Bob, may he rest in peace, opens up the rather thick A-file, examines client's original Mexican birth certificate and issues a very succinct legal opinion-oh, shit.

Client was a US citizen since birth and they had ALL the relevant information at the beginning of the immigration process.

From age 18 to 50, client had been treated as a non-citizen.

[BTW, during World War II, my mother had to register as an enemy alien. So Mom applied for American citizenship in 1943. It turned out that she had been a US citizen since early 1940 by derivative naturalization. She never was an enemy alien).

SanDiegogirl

He was born in 1945 in Mexico to a US born mother who had been widowed 18 months previous. Mom had been living in Mexico since two years of age.

So have they changed the rules now? I thought that to claim US citizenship, your parent had to have been living in the US for 3 (maybe 5 ) years following age of 14?
This mother, while born in the US, has not lived there since age of 2....... (pretty tenuous ties to the US)

morpeth

I will add to that question, I thought previously there was some rule about how long a child born abroad had to have lived before age 18 to retain citizenship.

In any case however OP seeks to handle, at some point should get a Certificate of Citizenship.

S Folinsky

The rules have changed many times over the years. When I teach the subject, my starting point is look at the the charts.

At the time my client was born, an illegitimate child of a US citizen mother who had any prior residence in the US was a citizen at birth.

S Folinsky

Those rules have been abolished. If the abolition took place while the citizen still had time to have complied with the retention rules, they kept AmCit without having to return to the US.

Also, if the person subject to the retention rules reasonably had no idea they were subject to the rules, let’s say ignorance of the law was an excuse. (By way of example, in December 1941, Winston Churchill addressed a Joint Session of Congress. He noted that since his mother was a US citizen and not his father, he sat in Parliment and not the US Congress. That limitation was subsequently ruled unconstitutional. So, Winnie had good reason to be unaware of the fact that he was an American citizen at birth).

scrubbedexpat096

So the US government has absolutely no way of tracking/claiming its citizens born abroad unless you provide them with the information to do so. Its irrelevant if i like it or not.

So having a legal requirement to enter on a US passport is largely irrelevant if you dont lay claim to the citizenship wether or not you are by birthright a USC.

Oh I've no doubt that is true. Doesn't change the fact that the entering on a US passport law is completely unnecessary/unusable for the reasons above.