One of the issues is that for birthright citizenship (as opposed to naturalization), one is not "granted" citizenship through a formal process or application, but rather simply has it from the moment of birth. The first time a person born here has to interact with the federal government to prove citizenship might be years later (e.g., applying for a passport), if at all.
Comments
Displaying 0 of 5 comments
Ed Hurtley
In response to this post@mattblaze I know a couple people who have had problems with that. They're absolutely citizens, but they have to prove it.
One is even harder - they're citizen-by-adoption-as-a-child. Their foreign-citizen father went back home after divorce with adoptive-mother-that-granted-citizenship. Adoptive mother doesn't want anything to do with them anymore, not even provide basic documentation needed for State Dept to acknowledge their citizenship.
Mentions: @mattblaze@federate.social
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
Boosts: 0
Boris Barbour
In response to this post@mattblaze
Something like this occurred in the UK for post-war Caribbean immigrants and their descendants (the "Windrush scandal"). Decades later, the Conservatives introduced retrospective requirements for documentation to prove the right to stay. Something like three documents for every year, continuously since arrival. Many were deported or lost social security because they didn't have documents they were never told and couldn't know they would need. It was (and still is) disgusting.
Mentions: @mattblaze@federate.social @mattblaze@federate.social @mattblaze@federate.social
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
Boosts: 0
Jennifer
In response to this post@mattblaze I read on the Bulwark today a theory that this may be the first test case to see if the Supreme Court will roll over on something that is clearly unconstitutional. I think that makes a lot of sense.
Mentions: @mattblaze@federate.social
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
Boosts: 0