U.S. Citizen?
-
-
Apparently, yes.
-
Interesting, though...If the sperm is American and the egg is Canadian, carried in a surrogate Canadian mother's womb, is the child a U.S. citizen if the birth takes place on Canadian soil?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
related but different. I know that President Trump talked in the past about looking into ending citizenship just because you were born in the US, regardless of the circumstance.
I actually agree that this should be looked at.
-
Interesting, though...If the sperm is American and the egg is Canadian, carried in a surrogate Canadian mother's womb, is the child a U.S. citizen if the birth takes place on Canadian soil?
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
Interesting, though...If the sperm is American and the egg is Canadian, carried in a surrogate Canadian mother's womb, is the child a U.S. citizen if the birth takes place on Canadian soil?
The court said it was, so take it up with them I guess.
Interesting how foreign-born adoptees don't get this kind of controversy. And by interesting I mean it's completely unsurprising.
-
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
Interesting, though...If the sperm is American and the egg is Canadian, carried in a surrogate Canadian mother's womb, is the child a U.S. citizen if the birth takes place on Canadian soil?
The court said it was, so take it up with them I guess.
Interesting how foreign-born adoptees don't get this kind of controversy. And by interesting I mean it's completely unsurprising.
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
Interesting, though...If the sperm is American and the egg is Canadian, carried in a surrogate Canadian mother's womb, is the child a U.S. citizen if the birth takes place on Canadian soil?
The court said it was, so take it up with them I guess.
Interesting how foreign-born adoptees don't get this kind of controversy. And by interesting I mean it's completely unsurprising.
What the court said, was that since the "parents" (marriage, not biological) were a married American couple (albeit gay, but gay marriage is now recognized), the child is American, no matter where the birth takes place. Kinda like John McCain being born on foreign soil.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
Interesting, though...If the sperm is American and the egg is Canadian, carried in a surrogate Canadian mother's womb, is the child a U.S. citizen if the birth takes place on Canadian soil?
The court said it was, so take it up with them I guess.
Interesting how foreign-born adoptees don't get this kind of controversy. And by interesting I mean it's completely unsurprising.
What the court said, was that since the "parents" (marriage, not biological) were a married American couple (albeit gay, but gay marriage is now recognized), the child is American, no matter where the birth takes place. Kinda like John McCain being born on foreign soil.
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
Interesting, though...If the sperm is American and the egg is Canadian, carried in a surrogate Canadian mother's womb, is the child a U.S. citizen if the birth takes place on Canadian soil?
The court said it was, so take it up with them I guess.
Interesting how foreign-born adoptees don't get this kind of controversy. And by interesting I mean it's completely unsurprising.
What the court said, was that since the "parents" (marriage, not biological) were a married American couple (albeit gay, but gay marriage is now recognized), the child is American, no matter where the birth takes place. Kinda like John McCain being born on foreign soil.
That's right. That's what the court said. So why are we contriving some kind of legal argument when really the issue is that you don't like the fact that their marriage is recognized? If you want to have that argument, have that argument. But because foreign kids with absolutely no family in the US become citizens after adoption, there's absolutely nothing controversial, strange, or even interesting going on here. Take the detail of the gay parents away and you never would have posted this. Also likely never would have made the news.
-
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
Interesting, though...If the sperm is American and the egg is Canadian, carried in a surrogate Canadian mother's womb, is the child a U.S. citizen if the birth takes place on Canadian soil?
The court said it was, so take it up with them I guess.
Interesting how foreign-born adoptees don't get this kind of controversy. And by interesting I mean it's completely unsurprising.
What the court said, was that since the "parents" (marriage, not biological) were a married American couple (albeit gay, but gay marriage is now recognized), the child is American, no matter where the birth takes place. Kinda like John McCain being born on foreign soil.
That's right. That's what the court said. So why are we contriving some kind of legal argument when really the issue is that you don't like the fact that their marriage is recognized? If you want to have that argument, have that argument. But because foreign kids with absolutely no family in the US become citizens after adoption, there's absolutely nothing controversial, strange, or even interesting going on here. Take the detail of the gay parents away and you never would have posted this. Also likely never would have made the news.
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
Interesting, though...If the sperm is American and the egg is Canadian, carried in a surrogate Canadian mother's womb, is the child a U.S. citizen if the birth takes place on Canadian soil?
The court said it was, so take it up with them I guess.
Interesting how foreign-born adoptees don't get this kind of controversy. And by interesting I mean it's completely unsurprising.
What the court said, was that since the "parents" (marriage, not biological) were a married American couple (albeit gay, but gay marriage is now recognized), the child is American, no matter where the birth takes place. Kinda like John McCain being born on foreign soil.
That's right. That's what the court said. So why are we contriving some kind of legal argument when really the issue is that you don't like the fact that their marriage is recognized? If you want to have that argument, have that argument. But because foreign kids with absolutely no family in the US become citizens after adoption, there's absolutely nothing controversial, strange, or even interesting going on here.
The argument is biology. As the government argued, a gay man cannot carry a baby in a womb that does not exist.
If an American serviceman impregnates a Japanese girl, is the child considered American?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
Interesting, though...If the sperm is American and the egg is Canadian, carried in a surrogate Canadian mother's womb, is the child a U.S. citizen if the birth takes place on Canadian soil?
The court said it was, so take it up with them I guess.
Interesting how foreign-born adoptees don't get this kind of controversy. And by interesting I mean it's completely unsurprising.
What the court said, was that since the "parents" (marriage, not biological) were a married American couple (albeit gay, but gay marriage is now recognized), the child is American, no matter where the birth takes place. Kinda like John McCain being born on foreign soil.
That's right. That's what the court said. So why are we contriving some kind of legal argument when really the issue is that you don't like the fact that their marriage is recognized? If you want to have that argument, have that argument. But because foreign kids with absolutely no family in the US become citizens after adoption, there's absolutely nothing controversial, strange, or even interesting going on here.
The argument is biology. As the government argued, a gay man cannot carry a baby in a womb that does not exist.
If an American serviceman impregnates a Japanese girl, is the child considered American?
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
Interesting, though...If the sperm is American and the egg is Canadian, carried in a surrogate Canadian mother's womb, is the child a U.S. citizen if the birth takes place on Canadian soil?
The court said it was, so take it up with them I guess.
Interesting how foreign-born adoptees don't get this kind of controversy. And by interesting I mean it's completely unsurprising.
What the court said, was that since the "parents" (marriage, not biological) were a married American couple (albeit gay, but gay marriage is now recognized), the child is American, no matter where the birth takes place. Kinda like John McCain being born on foreign soil.
That's right. That's what the court said. So why are we contriving some kind of legal argument when really the issue is that you don't like the fact that their marriage is recognized? If you want to have that argument, have that argument. But because foreign kids with absolutely no family in the US become citizens after adoption, there's absolutely nothing controversial, strange, or even interesting going on here.
The argument is biology.
No, that's your argument, because I'm guessing you're not very familiar with adoption law. If you were, you'd know that biology has nothing to do with child citizenship. Had they adopted a Canadian kid there'd be no story.
-
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
Interesting, though...If the sperm is American and the egg is Canadian, carried in a surrogate Canadian mother's womb, is the child a U.S. citizen if the birth takes place on Canadian soil?
The court said it was, so take it up with them I guess.
Interesting how foreign-born adoptees don't get this kind of controversy. And by interesting I mean it's completely unsurprising.
What the court said, was that since the "parents" (marriage, not biological) were a married American couple (albeit gay, but gay marriage is now recognized), the child is American, no matter where the birth takes place. Kinda like John McCain being born on foreign soil.
That's right. That's what the court said. So why are we contriving some kind of legal argument when really the issue is that you don't like the fact that their marriage is recognized? If you want to have that argument, have that argument. But because foreign kids with absolutely no family in the US become citizens after adoption, there's absolutely nothing controversial, strange, or even interesting going on here.
The argument is biology.
No, that's your argument, because I'm guessing you're not very familiar with adoption law. If you were, you'd know that biology has nothing to do with child citizenship. Had they adopted a Canadian kid there'd be no story.
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in U.S. Citizen?:
@Jolly said in U.S. Citizen?:
Interesting, though...If the sperm is American and the egg is Canadian, carried in a surrogate Canadian mother's womb, is the child a U.S. citizen if the birth takes place on Canadian soil?
The court said it was, so take it up with them I guess.
Interesting how foreign-born adoptees don't get this kind of controversy. And by interesting I mean it's completely unsurprising.
What the court said, was that since the "parents" (marriage, not biological) were a married American couple (albeit gay, but gay marriage is now recognized), the child is American, no matter where the birth takes place. Kinda like John McCain being born on foreign soil.
That's right. That's what the court said. So why are we contriving some kind of legal argument when really the issue is that you don't like the fact that their marriage is recognized? If you want to have that argument, have that argument. But because foreign kids with absolutely no family in the US become citizens after adoption, there's absolutely nothing controversial, strange, or even interesting going on here.
The argument is biology.
No, that's your argument, because I'm guessing you're not very familiar with adoption law. If you were, you'd know that biology has nothing to do with child citizenship. Had they adopted a Canadian kid there'd be no story.
Adoption is mentioned nowhere within the article.
-
related but different. I know that President Trump talked in the past about looking into ending citizenship just because you were born in the US, regardless of the circumstance.
I actually agree that this should be looked at.
@taiwan_girl said in U.S. Citizen?:
related but different. I know that President Trump talked in the past about looking into ending citizenship just because you were born in the US, regardless of the circumstance.
I actually agree that this should be looked at.
Yes, many people over many years have wanted this looked at.
I wonder why it is never looked at?
