Sorry, friends. We have one blood mother and one blood father. And, they're supposed to be married to each other. Imagine that...
7
Says you. Not everyone is so narrow-minded.
14
More articles about same sex parents, with pictures of two men cuddling, and Trump wins in November 2020 for sure.
8
These two people made a mess.
Poor baby!
5
Call the unions of same-gender couples what you like, but their acquisition of children through insemination of a woman-partner by a third party, adoption, surrogate motherhood, or outright purchase should be stopped forthwith.
All the above bring the society closer to Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".
10
So does this view also apply to non-fertile heterosexual couples that want children? If not, and you do make the connection to same-sex couples, your view that somehow heterosexual couples are somehow more natural is nothing more than heterosexist.
5
Like it or not, heterosexual couples are "more natural." Absent as yet undiscovered scientific manipulations, homosexual couples are incapable of producing a child "naturally." They can adopt or, if they have enough money, they can "buy" a child through a surrogacy arrangement.
2
The concept of complementarity suggest, reasonably, that both mothers and fathers are important in child rearing because they model the behavior by which men and women can live together with mutual respect. When that is learned in the home, it sticks.
Gee, who could've predicted that ethical & legal problems might arise when wealthy, privileged white men who generally disdain females pony up money to exploit far less privileged & usually much poorer women from abroad as "surrogates" & "gestators" to bear children for them?
I'll tell you who: feminists who for decades have been pointing out & protesting the ethical & legal minefield that is human surrogacy. Aka male exploitation of females of the worst kind.
Now two men who feel it's their human right to rent women's bodies when they want in order to get what they want - egg production & harvest from one, "incubation" & childbirth from another - are the parents of a daughter. Good for the dads, horrors for the daughter.
As a daughter, this poor child presumably will grow up to have ovaries capable of producing eggs & a uterus capable of "incubating" a child. Surely, these two smart capitalist men won't be able to pass up taking advantage of their female child's reproductive capacities to make a fast buck & fulfill the fantasies of other like-minded men.
These two dads could've easily made sure there'd be absolutely no dispute whatsoever about their child's citizenship by "using" a surrogate in the USA. But that would've cost them a lot more money. And they'd also not be able to use this case to garner attention to, & sympathy for, the cause they hold so dear: a world in which men freely buy, sell & rent women's bodies to make the eggs & bear the kids men want.
18
@curiousme
"feminists who for decades have been pointing out & protesting the ethical & legal minefield that is human surrogacy."
I find this view beyond hypocritical. The SCOUS grants all women the right to choose when it comes to ending a pregnancy.
Now "feminists" are against a women's right to choose when it comes to starting one?
1
Why could this matter not have been avoided by one or both custodial adoptive parents including the child on their family passport option? That would have defeated the need for a Visa for the child by reason of family travel on one passport.
I don't understand the timeline. If they were both in New York in 2014 when they met and got married the next year (in the US?), why didn't Mr. Gregg have the five years necessary to pass along his American citizenship in 2018? Had he spent some intervening time in the UK, where his child was born last year?
In general, the rules in place are to ensure that US citizens have strong ties to the US. I think it's reasonable that a US citizen have to spend five years in the US in order to pass along their citizenship to a child born outside the US.
It's terrible that Mr. Gregg is going back and forth between London and the US (though it rather confirms my suspicion that his ties to the US are relatively weak) -- but I think it's reasonable to demand that his child spend at least five years in the US before receiving her citizenship.
1
There are adults in this country who should not be here, they have criminal records in their home countries, or are here for nefarious purposes. And THIS! This is what we expend our limited resources on? How much taxpayer money is wasted denying a child a loving home? I don't really even care if there is a biological parent involved. When a child from another country is adopted by an American citizen, that child should become a citizen upon the legal completion of the adoption. Period. Yeesh.
2
One second here...Ted Cruz, a man born in Canada with only one of his parents being an American citizen (I will assume by birthright) at the time of his birth was allowed to run for president. The blood relationship mentioned here is unquestionable, so this injustice solely hinges on the "born" caveat. This is absolutely terrible and outrageous and just reeks of bigotry.
"requires a child born abroad to have a biological connection to an American parent in order to receive citizenship at birth."
Sperm isn't a biological connection?
1
I am a US citizen living in Canada. My daughter is adopted, born in China. When I attempted to have her designated an American born abroad 20 years ago I was told that it would be no problem were she my biological child but because she was adopted she would have to live for 5 years in the US as a minor. The problem was technical as the person at the Consulate chirpily explained: "citizenship is under State but the INS is under Justice." Apparently an adopted child would be an immigrant where a biological child would not be. At the time it felt like a loss. Now, in view of what the US has become, and longing myself to be free of my US citizenship, it feels as though we dodged a bullet.
2
Why can’t they just adopt her so they can get a green card and then citizenship?
5
And in my hometown we have hundreds of Chinese nationals coming to the USA for birth tourism to have their (US citizen) babies that will come and reap benefits of the US taxpayer and possibly create national security risks down the road.
9
Wait a minute.
Georgia recognizes same-sex marriage?
Glad there were no complications requiring abortion.
The world is a nightmare.
5
Another grotesque law in this once land of freedom. When will people vote these criminals out?
5
@John Edelmann The governing law was passed in 1952, and the policy rules based on that law dates from the 1990's. These people have mostly been out of office for decades.
1
I wonder who, in particular, wrote the current policy interpreting of the 1952 Act to discriminate against this surrogate child and of other similarly situated infants?
State needs to be reviewing every interpretation of that benighted 1952 law with an eye to redrafting policies to the extent possible that reflect the colonialist attitudes of that era.
The Act also makes much harder even the granting of visitor's and business visas to people from developing countries, since it presumes that most such requests are motivated by the applicant's desire to overstay the visa. To overcome that presumption, applicants must produce all manner of private documents. Consular Officers, whose decisions the 1952 act makes almost impossible to appeal, can end the visa interview in as 4 minutes with a "thumbs down."
When the average American looks at habitual voting against our positions in the UN, I wonder if they realize that some of the emotional foundation causing their anti-U.S. votes must come from the delegates' perceptions of family members, colleagues and friends whom the delegates believe have been denied a visa by a system that really does look down on them due to their country's economic status. Even successful applicants feel victimized by processing fees costing an arm and a leg.
Looking past the roaches at State who have written policies/ regulations to stretch the 1952 colonialist relic further in the wrong direction, lies two generations of do-nothing Congresses.
4
Throw in Trump's opposition to chain migration and there are roadblocks ahead for these families. When enough people located strategically in a handful of states elect a hateful bigot, this is what we get.
6
No special laws because they are a " Same sex couple". Dont use the oh its discrimination to skirt the laws. There is no exemption.
4
This is truly ironic. The dems refuse to change the Immigration laws because the hate the President. The laws could be easily changed to accommodate these birthing situations.
The article makes no mention of the fact that all of the mentioned children could legally enter the USA and eventually adjust status, get a green card and become a USC long before they reach adulthood.
1
They should here waited and just adopted one of the many soon-to-be unwanted babies that are going to be born in Georgia.
6
I can not imagine that any arm of our government is unable to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling that allowed all gay couples to be married in any state. It strains the plain wording of that opinion to claim that the child of any gay married couple has been born “out of wedlock.” One of these folks needs to work with their Congressman and Senator to cause a change of arcane rules that do not apply to today’s reality.
3
This article could do a better job of explaining exactly what the rules are and how these couples are not conforming to them. It reads like advocacy rather than reporting.
Of course same-sex marriages raise special issues; it's in the nature of things that two men cannot be the biological parents, the biological mother and biological father, of a baby (at least not yet). Kiviti asks, "what's the point of giving us the right to marry," but the inability of law to redefine biology is not a legal argument.
3
Each day uncovers another fetid layer of reprehensible actions by this Administration that should have Americans shuddering at their core. Witness as unholy “Pro-Lifers” spout their beliefs while using children as pawns in their politically motivated games?
“State Department discriminates against same-sex couples and their children by failing to recognize their marriages.”
2
This is getting more than a little nuts.
I hate Trump. I really do. And CLEARLY these rules have not kept pace it’s technolgical change.
However, these have been the rules through multiple administrations including Clinton’s and Obama’s. These rules were not written by Stephen Miller. They have not been promulgated to discriminate against same-sex couples.
They are just the rules in place and the Dept of State people do not have the option to waive them.
maybe instead of whining daily about whether or not to start a pointless impeachment Hearing, the Dems in the House could hold Hearings on changing this Law.
Just a thought.
5
@Lefthalfbach: The Democrats have passed a significant number of bills and sent them onto the Senate and guess what has happened? Nothing.
The Dems are doing exactly what we sent them to do. Mitch McConnell is a traitor to this country, plain and simple. I'm sick to death of him. He's already said he is the 'Grim Reaper' for any Democratic bills. He sure looks it. He is Death personified. And he is killing, along with Trump, our country.
6
That the law needs changed is obvious, except maybe to the homophobic; however, speaking of homophobia, this is hardly the administration to begin such a quest.
2
The stories you cited are crazy but no crazier than mine. I am a US citizen and adopted a child at 2 years old. Ten years later he is still not a US citizen. If he is ever deported back to his native Tanzania it will only be because the US discriminates between natural born children and others.
4
the cirizenship issue is unfair, but this article but skirts the ethics around surrogacy-still not recognized in NYS for example. seems (?) this surrogate was a friend, altruistic. But the majority of surrogates are poor people purchased to carry rich people’s children. The risks to the surrogate mother are ignored. wealthy gay folk or elderly rich straight white folk buying wombs in places like nepal, india, poor oarts of the US, etc. despicable, adoption still exists.
3
All this is is another assault on the GLBT community-but with a twist that is all to familiar with this administration-they are torturing children.
4
Under the Trump administration, why would anyone want US citizenship? Wait until this intolerant executive and legislative bodies are gone, and then get your kids US citizenship - if it's still worth it.
3
These quirky rules apply to heteros also. If a an unmarried US citizen male fathers a chile abroad with foreign mother, the child can only claim US citizenship of the father commits to financially support the child. Gals father must have lived in USA for 5 years. Seems like we need congress to pass new common sense laws to cover these new cases.
4
Seems that the real issue has nothing to do with the children, but with the fallacious belief that those of us in the LGBT+ community have the same rights as those who are not in the LGBT+ community.
1
@Peter Hornbein: If Mr. Gregg were married to a woman, but if all the other facts were the same, would Simone's citizenship status be different?
3
@Mark If all the other facts, including the surrogacy issue, were the same then no, the citizenship status would not be different. If Mr. Gregg were married to a woman and that woman was the mother of the child, then there would be a different set of facts and a different status.
2
I think there might be an inaccuracy in this article. All children born to US citizens outside the US must prove that their parents spent 5 years living in the US as teenagers/adults - at least that is what I had to prove to obtain US citizenship for my son who was born in Canada, and I gave birth to my son. This article states that the 5-year-proof requirement is somehow an “extra” burden on only certain people.
8
Where's the beef? This law would apply regardless of the sexual preferences of the parents, if the facts on the conception were similar. It's no big deal. Both parents adopt the child, apply for her visa, then apply for her citizenship.
2
I'm all for equality for all. That being said. The rule applies to children born of opposite-sex couples as well. Not sure how this is discrimination or why it becomes a story just because the couple is same-sex.
10
I am appalled that my government is wasting resources to harrass families. GOP really is all about the cruelty. Rules created to diminish the happiness of certain groups of citizens are rules that should be changed.
4
If this story was about african, asain, or latin couples it would have no traction. White people with european ancestry hardly demand the status of a protected class.
I have personally been in a stateless immigration hole for 12yrs and unfortunately they appear no more worthy than me, my daughter, or thousands of others who are equally denied citizenship in their resident countries.
Yes something should change for these families but after the fact, they should be pleading for forgiveness first, rather than permission and victimhood.
So - has the UK given the daughter citizenship? because leaving a child stateless by denying citizenship is against the UN declaration on children's rights.
3
It is solipsistic and bizarre to bring a child into the world without the benefit of a mother and father. Part of that little girl needs a mother to teach her the things that only a mother can teach her. A gay man--no matter how feminine--can and will never be a woman. The same holds true for the unfortunate little boys whom, for the sake of their adoptive parents' desire for a child, are thrust into similar situations. The legal woes these children face only makes it all the more selfish on the part of these adoptive couples.
3
Really? What about single parents raising children of the opposite gender?Do you really not understand that parenting is about love not gender?
3
In the case or Mr. Mize and Mr. Gregg, it doesn't appear the issue is about the parent's gay marriage. The issue as to do with the donor father not being in the U.S. long enough to confer U.S. citizenship upon the child.
If the American born father had been the donor, I think the case might have turned out differently, in light of the other cases that were described.
As for the Child Citizenship Act, I would imagine that those Americans who adopted overseas had lived in the U.S. all their lives and so were able to confer U.S. citizenship upon their children.
I believe the five year requirement is reasonable, for protection against fraud, and especially in the case of a donor of sperm having a child by a foreign surrogate.
So I suppose that in the case of Mr. Mize and Mr. Gregg, their child would most likely get a green card as compared to a U.S. passport.
25
@Barbara In what universe of ethics is it "reasonable" to put a family through this trauma? Both parents are US citizens and they had a child. Your comment is cold and harsh, and misses the important point about the law not taking into account LGBT families as well as the latest reproductive technologies.
24
@JR The child is almost certainly eligible for a green card, pending naturalisation. As it stands she is a British national which was a conscious decision of the parents in opting to give birth abroad via the British parent and a British surrogate. US rules in this regard are no more onerous than those in the UK, where a child born in the US of UK nationals *by descent*, is not automatically entitled to citizenship.
13
This is not just an issue for gay men. U.S. citizens who have a child abroad bring the child to an embassy to be naturalized. On the form, it asks if you used reproductive assistive technology. If you say yes, that's when the questioning begins. I know of a woman who was unable to naturalize her children because she used donor eggs, although maybe that changed if the State Department did indeed recognize giving birth as a biological connection. In any case, she spent years fighting the system.
1
Instead of fixating only on President Trump and raising money for election campaigns, the Dems in Congress should join with the Reps and pass legislation that fixes problems like this.
1
So, if I am correct, the babies mentioned in the article were born in the UK and Canada? Funny coincidences there, as in both countries having rather less expensive healthcare systems than that for which nationality is being sought. Speaking as a Brit, am I allowed to ask whether the UK born child was born in an NHS or private hospital, ie at taxpayer expense or not?
1
I strongly disagree with using donor seem and eggs with a surrogate mother. This has become a "trophy child" industry, which negates the spiritual component of childbirth. If these two men wanted to have a child, they should have considered adoption instead. There are many unwanted and essentially homeless children who need a loving home. Obviously these men are not the parents, as neither individual is biologically capable of providing an ovum.
Children are not trophies, as many gay couples and others seem to think. They are a gift of God, not trophies!
4
There really aren't a lot of babies put up for adoption. it's much harder than you think. also, if the plight of orphan children moves you, I wonder why you aren't telling heterosexual couples to adopt (for whom it is frankly easier than for gay couples). lastly many heterosexual couples use surrogacy all the time. (As an aside, I fully agree that surrogacy should not be a free for all-- that it should be expensive, difficult, and done according to best practices. surrogacy can be ethically murky, and it absolutely needs to be done in a non-exploitative way).
Yet someone born in the US, regardless of the legal status or citizenship of the parents, is automatically a citizen, correct? A law that has never made any sense to me.
4
To answer your question - the State Dept should not change its policy.
As was quoted - many of these rules and regulations were put in place to stop abuse or outright fraud.
As it happens, I just met a young couple here in Bogota, Colombia where father is a dual Colombian and American. But the woman is Colombian. Their little girl, Bianca born in Bogota just a month back - the US embassy here is raising objections to granting her a US passport on a similar issue of residency of both parents in America.
So, the State is right to enforce it's own policies.
Unfortunately, in today's America - everyone wants to be an exception and on top of that, demand wholesale policy changes based on their individual cases.
In light of child trafficking issues - the State is well advised to be cautious.
Finally, as an aside - I thought Brits always tell us how their country and its passports are superior to ours. Why don't they award and honor their daughter with Her Majesty's passport.
1
This seems a bureaucratic effort to carry out a prejudiced political agenda. One would hope, in light of the Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, that this injustice can be remedied soon.
This is yet another example of the impact that this odious administration is having on this country. There is nothing short of the fate of this republic on the line.
The absurd thing is that if these parents decide to leave the US because of the complications with their children, they, as US expats, will be obligated to file US tax returns and pay taxes if their foreign-earned income exceeds a certain amount. The US is one of very few countries that require expats to pay taxes on income not earned in the US (and to file returns, even if they don’t owe).
But I see a simple solution - claim that the babies are models and that they deserve “Einstein” visas.
It appears that Mr. Mize should adopt the child, get her a British passport and a U.S. immigration visa, then begin the process of getting her permanent residence and, eventually, U.S. citizenship. This is not discrimination against a gay couple, per se. One can imagine an American citizen woman whose British-born American husband donates sperm and a British surrogate mother births the child in the UK. They would be in the same predicament.
The Mize-Gregg couple needs some good lawyers, and they also can begin a campaign for modernization of U.S. law and practices in such cases.
2
I'm confused. Why can't they just adopt the child, as any international adoption has been done in the past? It takes some time, effort and money, but the path to citizenship is clear.
1
I filed to immigrate my daughter in 2002. I am an American
citizen and she was born in Mexico. She is my biological child.
Visa numbers for Mexico are in 1997 and for years haven't
advanced at all. The rest of the world's numbers are either
current or from 2007 to 2012. How is this possible? She is
all alone and the only one in our family that is not here. She
studied in the US and graduated with a BA from USD. Also,
she graduated from GIA as a jeweler/gemologist and she is proficient in English.
3
I read this article with great interest, as my husband and I (gay married couple, both born and raised for over 20 years in America but have lived abroad for the past 7 years) are currently searching for a Canadian surrogate for our embryos made with Canadian eggs and our American sperm. This problematic loophole seems only to apply to foreign-born US citizens and/or US citizens that have not met the 5-year residency requirement. Because these cases have come to light, we now need to contact a law firm to make sure that our children are entitled to US citizenship under current law. Any definitive responses from this crowd of smart people? Any law firms / advocacy groups you would recommend we reach out to for confirmation?
1
My first thought is why would anyone work so hard to make their child a citizen of the US? It is not like this country is any longer some beacon of freedom and hope for the world, but in fact quite the opposite. IMO the very fact that the government is fighting to exclude this child proves my point.
3
The birth rate is at an all time low, schools are closing and Medicare and SS are underfunded and our country is turning away young people. Go figure.
1
The law and State Department policy have nothing to do with recognition (or lack thereof) of the legal status of a couple's marriage, but everything to do with the biological connection to a U.S. citizen parent. A newborn is entitled to U.S. citizenship only if: a) it is born on U.S. soil; or b) it is born to a qualifying U.S. citizen. Using surrogates overseas, as the couples quoted in the article have done, removes the first option.
Per State Department interpretation of U.S. law, a couple who uses a surrogate abroad must use the genetic material (egg or sperm) of the U.S. citizen for the child to qualify for citizenship from birth. For a child born of a surrogate abroad using genetic material from a non-U.S. citizen, the child must be legally adopted by the U.S. citizen parent to gain U.S. citizenship. What the article implies through the interviews, that a legally-married couple that includes a U.S. citizen should automatically confer U.S. citizenship to a child with whom the citizen parent shares no genetic connection, is akin to non-U.S. citizen children gaining citizenship when their parent remarries a U.S. citizen (they would in fact have to be legally adopted by the U.S. citizen to qualify for citizenship, just like the surrogacy cases).
What is needed is better information from surrogacy clinics and better research by prospective parents considering surrogacy on citizenship issues.
6
What strikes me about the US policy is how discriminatory to men it is. Men in general are discriminated against in family matters and reproductive rights. In family court mothers have always had an advantage in custody matters, although in recent years this has gotten much better. In abortion it is the mother's right to chose and legally the father is a uninterested party. And now, under the policy the article addresses, it is the person who gives birth that determines the citizenship of the baby.
It is long past time to modernize out laws to give men and women equal rights in family matters.
Well then. Perhaps we call the immigration of the child "chain migration", equate it to Ms. Trump's foreign born parent immigration and that is that.
11
This is what makes America great! Two guys that get married don’t get to rewrite the laws even if the laws are 50+ years old. Equal treatment?
If we scientifically make a baby here in Texas can I choose it to have Hawaii on its birth certificate because I want my child to be born in Hawaii? No, it doesn’t work that way.
Be responsible and learn about what you are doing before you do it, could have saved everyone some time. That is how you go about equality.
9
Funny, I thought republican/conservatives wanted to keep government out of our lives, but first they're dictating my reproductive options, now they're considering the deportation of foreign-born adopted children on the basis of their birth. Weren't they legally adopted with all of the documentation that that entails?
16
Not taking a stance on this issue in this post. Instead, I want to ask why the article does not include the specific ruling that makes this an issue. It constantly refers to a "biological connection", which is evidently present with these parents, but I had to go further in my own research to find this to make sense of what claim the government had:
"In addition to establishing a biological relationship to the child, U.S. citizen parents must also establish that other transmission requirements have been met, such as having had certain periods of physical presence or a residence in the United States prior to the birth of the child."
This is the part that is the issue with this family, why is it not mentioned in the article? Instead, I just sat confused, not seeing how a "biological connection" wasn't reached when two American fathers with one sharing DNA with the baby, couldn't get the baby's citizenship. Seems like a huge part that is needed for the story, was not included here...
10
@Matt Well I need to correct myself here and I am admitting my faults. This article does say "Such a designation comes with extra requirements for transmitting citizenship, including showing that a biological parent is an American citizen who has spent at least five years in the United States." I would hope this was highlighted right on top while discussing the two fathers situation, rather than keep mentioning the "biological connection" claim. But it makes me feel better that this 5 year presence is included.
2
Especially since the US govt is obligated to make sure this child is not left stateless, as both parents are American citizens. The couple seems to have pursued British citizenship through the biological mother and father BEFORE applying for the US passport through 2 American parents - although this is also not clarified. I deduce this because the child is able to obtain a visitor's visa in the USA which means she defo has a passport from somewhere else . Now that this (presumably UK) passport is issued, the US is not obligated to provide a US passport to her. It was just not careful planning or fine print reading on the part of the parents. Navigating visas and citizenship is a minefield, especially when the USA is involved. as a citizen they will track you down for ever and ever, wherever in the world you live, laying claim to your money and assets, making it so no banks abroad want to do business with you, ever, till you pay lots of money to renounce your US citizenship. So this kid is pretty lucky with her UK passport IMO and the policy is not anti-gay, it's just red tape, it seems they did not go through the required channels of registering for a US birth abroad first, etc., although none of this is very clear in this article.
Not that one does not have sympathies for the modern families that come into materialization with assistant reproductive technologies, but there are legal loopholes.
There have been cases where heterosexual couples adopted from abroad, yet simply assumed because the children were adopted that they'd automatically become American citizens. (The tragic learning curve comes when the children become adults, and are deported for minor charges.)
4
I read this article with great interest, as my husband and I (gay married couple, both born and raised for over 20 years in America but have lived abroad for the past 7 years) are currently searching for a Canadian surrogate for our embryos made with Canadian eggs and our American sperm. This problematic loophole seems only to apply to foreign-born US citizens and/or US citizens that have not met the 5-year residency requirement. Because these cases have come to light, we now need to contact a law firm to make sure that our children are entitled to US citizenship under current law. Any definitive responses from this crowd of smart people? Any law firms / advocacy groups you would recommend we reach out to for confirmation?
3
you guys are fine, as you are both American. the issue arises when one male parent isn't American AND when the baby is born abroad. best of luck as you build your family.
1
What is interesting about this is that children born abroad to heterosexual parents do not have their DNA tested in order to prove that both their parents are in fact their biological parents.
This makes this discriminatory based on gender, in essence.
21
Oh right, because our government has nothing better to do than rip apart a happy family. Let's focus precious time and resources on this while millions of children live in poverty or are denied proper health care, while children seeking asylum are separated from their parents and put in prisons, and while we fail to act on preventing our planet from becoming uninhabitable for the next generations. We are clearly a society in collapse if these are our priorities.
35
If the USCIS approved this case, then adoption paperwork would be moot. What would be the judiciable difference between this case and someone picking up a child in a foreign country and calling the child their own? International adoption is a morass of corruption and bribery, full of serious moral and ethical issues.
I’m sure the couple finds my opinion offensive, but I wish people would think about unintended consequences.
13
The American law of citizenship cuts both ways.
Sometimes you wished you would never have been born in the US
Boris Johnson, former Mayor of London, and former UK secretary of State and UK citizen had the misfortune to be born in the US while his parent was studying in the US.
He was not back, ever since, to live here
Misfortune, because upon the sale of his house, tax free under UK law, he founded himself hounded by the US IRS
that demanded capital gains tax
See
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/world/europe/britain-boris-johnson-renounces-american-citizenship.html
However, not to be arrested in the US, on visits as the UK secretary of State, he paid up
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/world/europe/britain-boris-johnson-renounces-american-citizenship.html
to become the UK Foreign Secretary
Most mysterious : Sales of private residences is not taxed in the UK, and hence not recorded in the tax roles
Who informed the IRS?
PS: The bookies have Johnson leading the polls to be the next UK PM
They currently have Boris at 11/4 to be the next permanent PM, according to Paddy Power.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7749541/will-boris-johnson-next-prime-minister-latest-odds-theresa-may/
3
Don’t forget, Winston Churchill had an American mother.
This has to be the craziest thing I have read today. Crazy, crazy, crazy.
9
So when Republicans want to break up the family unit and take away the child-- deport the child to where, exactly? To whom?
16
to be clear, this predates Trump. Was also applied under Obama, who made some improvements for lesbians in this regard, but not gay males. not that I am a trump supporter
As an American living abroad I went on the US State Department website and read the requirements for citizenship transmission before I so much as tried to get pregnant. And I’m not even a lawyer.
These parents were incredibly foolish and created their own problem.
Nonetheless, the rules should be legally challenged or updated because the effect is clearly discriminatory.
Also, creating stateless children is immoral and contrary to the international conventions against statelessness that the US has signed.
38
@Ariane
Thank you! All they had to do was visit the US Consulate and file the paperwork- The baby would have been eventually granted US citizenship. This article was poorly written but it sounds like they had the child and "side stepped the system" .. OH well.. Why do I have to feel sorry for two people who broke the law? Just because they are LGBTQ I have to make an exception and feel pity? Give me a break!
6
no, you've misunderstood the article. for the child born abroad to a surrogate who's father isn't American, there is no solution. there is currently no way to get citizenship
No, because they are good and decent people faced by a horrific situation you “have to feel pity.” Or at least should. The lack of empathy from some commenters is astounding.
This makes absolutely no sense. Many American couples adopt children from other countries—aren't adopted children eligible for citizenship? Why can't these children be adopted by the parent(s) that aren't biologically related to them and be done with it? If they're legally married, they should able to adopt their children legally as well. The time, effort, and money being wasted on destroying families is sickening and outrageous. It has to stop.
12
My wife and I, both American citizens and living in the USA, adopted a child born in South Korea. Neither of us had any biological connection to the infant. In less than a year, she became a United States citizen. However, we fully researched the issue of citizenship long before she arrived in the United States.
While I have a great deal of sympathy for Gregg and Mize, it is clear they didn't do their homework prior to adoption.
39
@Tom Q
LGBTQ are exempt from homework.. They just want equality and sympathy.
This is the problem with all of this assisted/artificial reproduction. Everyone is up in arms about abortion but the real moral/ethical issue is this. Eggs from someone else, sperm from someone else, a rented uterus...where does it end? I'm sorry, but none of this is in any way natural or good for society and it's causing heartbreak and confusion everywhere. We have millions of homeless, starving children in the world, yet someone we condone this absurd notion that everyone is entitled to have a child "of their own"- even people who cannot conceive naturally. It's time we start thinking about the actual child instead of ourselves and our selfish desires.
22
One could say the same to the State Department and Trump Administration leaders whose policies lead to stateless children. Bring the rules into modern times.
While it seems cruel, and it is cruel to not give citizenship to these babies, innocent of their parent's choices, granting citizenship in these cases is tantamount to blessing in-vitro surrogacy as ethical, or at least, as acceptable. Surrogacy is ethically questionable and both its ethics and its legality should be decided first nationally --something the US is far from doing anytime soon.
It is entirely questionable whether using a woman's body as a vessel, even if the woman agrees, is legal and ethical and under what regulations and protections should be allowable --even if she is unpaid this remains highly questionable, perhaps especially if she is *not* paid.
Besides, would a baby born through surrogacy in a country where it is strictly forbidden still be eligible? Are we to encourage breaking the laws of other countries? The question goes beyond a family's choice and to the root of what a society defines as a parent --not to say on whether Obergefell will remain in the books.
Besides, exactly why did these families undertake this exercise? Immigration laws are clear in terms of using DNA to establish parentage --as USCIS has been doing for years.
11
Can we legally make Trump "NOT American"? Certainly his wife and inlays should not be.
12
Maybe they and others will now think twice before treating women, and especially less-wealthy and probably less-educated and less empowered women overseas (and often women of color) as incubators to be rented or cattle to breed.
Seems the British man forgot to leave his imperialistic tendencies back in the UK, and the lawyer didn't bother to check the law - or his privilege.
26
@Human Being
Read the article. The surrogate was a good friend of the father. No money can be exchanged in Britain for surrogacy. Get off your high horse and read before you criticize.
It's not shocking. If you weren't born on American soil, you're not a citizen. "Same Sex" has nothing to do with this issue. It's a conflation designed to gain sympathy - at best. Or, more likely, it's just plain dishonest. I can see why Mr. Mize might be a "former lawyer."
9
@s.s.c. Not sure what alternative reality you live in. Children born to US citizens outside the US do get US citizenship! Ted Cruz is one example.
22
Actually, American citizenship is granted if you’re born on American soil OR if you’re parent is a citizen (regardless of where you’re born).
14
And here was me believing, silly, that laws and rules are there to protect people, and not the other way round.
5
The most important person in the men's family story is their daughter, who has no say or power in any of this.
While she may grow up knowing that she was so wanted that her dads went to great ends to get her, I also wonder about the impact on her self-esteem as a girl/woman knowing that the two men who raised her had little ethical problem egg- and uterus-shopping on-line (How it's often done these days with overseas egg donation etc). Or with effectively renting a woman's body, probably one of the less expensive ones since overseas, in order to fulfill their desire to parent a biological child of one of them rather than create a home with and for an innocent child who was orphaned or who was so unsafe with her birth parents that they lost parental rights?
21
Ah, the inevitable homophobic comment! Why is it okay for two lesbian women or two straight people to desire a biological child an a major moral issue when two gay men desire the same? Please reply with an answer; I’m dying to dissect your mental gymnastics.
16
@Person it does say in the article that a personal friend in the UK was the surrogate.
6
Because every child deserves a mother and a father
2
" Such a designation comes with extra requirements for transmitting citizenship, including showing that a biological parent is an American citizen who has spent at least five years in the United States."
So someone born in another country and granted citizenship there to a foreign-born and foreign-raised American citizen parent with citizenship and allegiances in that foreign country, could live from age one-month to age 5 yrs and one month with a non-US-citizen adult residing temporarily in the US but allegiances elsewhere, and then move out of the country never to return, but his kid, also born abroad, would be an American?
3
No. The parent has to live in United States for 5 years after the age of 14.
2
It is not intentionally hateful. It is a simple situation of laws and regulations not keeping up with the times. The law has to be followed until it is changed and it will be. Word to the wise, if you are going to do something international that is out of the norm, check with a lawyer first.
16
The policy needs to be updated to include children born under the circumstances described.
10
This case defies fairness, common sense and morality. It’s against what good human beings are all about. And it’s going to get worse with this guy Cuccinelli. 2020 elections are unprecedentedly important – it’s a live or die USA.
8
It’s deliberate cruelty.
6
Another case of Conservative Nationalism run amok.
8
What’s wrong with these people in this government? And by these people, I mean the heartless, yellow-bellied, wicked cubicle warriors occupying what was once a great government. Why go out of your way to make someone’s life more difficult, when it doesn’t even make your life easier? Who does that? These are just more moronic actions of a government run by an emotional toddler.
7
@Theo Baker Except this law predates Trump and has been enforced by D administrations too.
4
If you want your children to be U.S. citizens, have them born in the United States. Everything else is just a detail. That said, this is just persecution of homosexuals is a new age form.
6
Both my children were born outside the US and were conferred citizenship at birth under federal law. Under the constitution same sex couples have the right to marry. How is this practice not an equal protection violation?
6
I don't recall seeing the names "Cuccinelli" or "Trump" on the Mayflower passenger list, or on the passenger lists of the Winthrop fleet. Where do they get the authority to determine who is a real American? How many of their ancestors fought for our side in WWII and WWI, or for the Union in the Civil War, or for our nascent country in the Revolutionary War? How many of their ancestors fought for England's settlements in the Pequot War, Metacomet's War, King William's War, Queen Anne's War, Governor Dummer's War, King George's War, or the Seven Years' War? Their authority rests on gas emissions fore and aft.
5
@William Burgess Leavenworth the law in question predates the current administration. Did you read the article in its entirety?
10
The law is the law: people might not like it, but it is the law.
I feel somewhat badly for the people involved (and I admit that the picture is a classic device for eliciting sympathy for all involved) but they should have thought of this - and discussed the matter - beforehand.
20
Somewhat “badly” for parents separated from their kids. Who have we become.
8
I'm confused and hoping someone can explain: the infant daughter mentioned at the beginning of the article is the biological child of an American citizen (her biological father was born in Britain to an American mother and therefore is a dual British-American citizen). What is the legal argument for her not being granted citizenship? I understand the arguments in the other complex cases, but hoping someone can clarify that first one. Thanks.
6
Had he formally claimed his American citizenship prior to her birth? Is it certain that it was his sperm (because there are numbers of well-documented cases of ethically "flexible" people who have switched sperm used in artificial insemination/IVF)?
2
@LA Just kidding, I reread and saw what I had missed the first time - her biological father hadn't spent enough time in the US. Sorry!
5
I think the technicality here is that if the child is born ‘out of wedlock,’ the biological parent American citizen has to have lived in the US for 5 years. That’s what makes the rule so strange.
2
My heart goes out to all couples struggling to start a family but any over seas process requires due diligence. My wife and I adopted two children internationally in 1996 and 1999 before the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 was passed. We filed an Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition with the State Department at the very beginning of both adoption processes. So it was not a matter of if but a matter of when our children would be granted permanent U.S. citizenship status.
The law is the law but all laws can be amended and hopefully these families will be made whole as soon as possible.
9
They didn't think of flying the mother to USA to have the baby?
11
@thunderstrike Yes, let's encourage more people to come here and have babies.
3
Do you know how much it costs to have a baby in the Us? I think it’s taking advantage of the NHS to have an American baby born there, but otherwise they would probably be paying $20-30k out of pocket, assuming things go well medically.
@thunderstrike it wouldn’t be free
So, all those years when the Republcian party crowed about being the party of "Family Values," they actually meant they were the "Families DE-valued" party.
Explains a lot.
10
@itsmecraig So explains why this policy predates Trump and has been enforced by D administrations too.
5
DOS cannot be extending this baseless ruling to children who have a USC parent's DNA, can it? That is blatantly against the law. A child born to a even one USC is also a citizen. How did we get to this heartless and illegal point?
5
A legal position of the Clinton Administration and modified by the Obama Administration is Trumps fault? You’ve got to be kidding me.
18
@Jay - did they say that?
3
I'm someone who wishes to significantly limit immig into the United States for a variety of reasons.
This particular situation is maddening for me because it makes immigration hawks (like me) seem insane.
This "policy" helps no-one and does no good. It's just gratuitous cruelty with no real policy purpose. And I guess that pretty much sums of the Trump "Administration" to date.
8
@Will.
"Seem"?
6
See what happens when you put a political party in charge that, while it promotes itself and THE family values party, actually does the very opposite.
In fact, this political party occupying and running our once democratic nation that prided itself on being a "melting pot" of immigrants from all over the world now seems to go out of its way to demean modern-day families that don't conform to this party's narrow definition of a family as 1 man + 1 woman and any children, preferably white and of European heritage.
Oh but the parents in the family discussed here are whites of European heritage. BUT, not so fast, because these 2 parents are gay. Sound the alarm.
Lost in all this nasty citizenship wrangling is the crucial question: What would be best for this couple's small child? And, never mind the unworkable ramifications of this GOP policing of families and citizenship in an increasingly globalized world (have they nothing more urgent to do??).
Bottom line: Judge a nation and its government by how its politicians treat children at home and abroad.
The Trump administration has intentionally separated children from their parents at the border, put children in cages, insulted and worked against the citizenship of The Dreamers brought to this country as children and raised as Americans, worked to deny poorer families of much-needed affordable health care....
Who will truly care for the children? Not the Republicans, which is why I refuse to vote for any Republican
10
If this weren’t so incredibly sad and outrageous, I’d point out the hypocrisy from the party of marriage and families.
7
Wouldn't anyone having a child in this more complicated process -- out of the country -- doubly check parental rights/laws in this time of immigration crises? I would have guessed these two educated men made that their first questions.
12
They are the parents. It shouldn’t matter that their child was adopted. For all I know, I’m not legal. I’m adopted.
3
Complex case due to the new social chaos!
3
Interesting that no one seems to question international surrogacy any more. Renting out the womb of a Canadian may be a case of altruism on her part, but what about a poor woman in India? Of course the U.S. government is behaving badly (as usual), but maybe it will encourage more adoption instead.
11
Will Congress please fix this ridiculous interpretation of an outdated law by passing a new law that clearly includes these children as American citizens.
3
Move to Canada. You'd be better off. I would if we were trapped by medicare. Or even better,Denmark or Sweden or France.
3
Not so easy. They have more stringent immigration and citizenship requirements than USA does.
8
Enough with presenting the false argument that these men are the victims. All children born of surrogacy are precious. However, surrogacy seen through an economic justice lens is nothing short of rich people taking advantage of poor women.
Period.
I don't care if its white gay married men or well-off heterosexual couples--it is ALWAYS rich people using poor people.
The birth mother and the baby are the real victims here.
NYT please STOP presenting something as intimate and core to the human experience as childbirth as something that should be nothing more than transactional. I question the ethics of the so called "surrogacy movement" or see it through an economic justice lens.
This legal fight of theirs is secondary to the core issues of basic economic and human rights of women.
14
I guess you did not read the article since one of the couples in question had a friend incubate the fetus until she was born. No victim there. You don’t think surrogacy is a good idea, then don’t participate in it.
9
I don’t know about the UK, but in Canada it’s illegal to pay a surrogate. The women who do it, do so out of the goodness of their hearts and a desire to help.
2
@Bella yikes 9 months of torture deserve a stipend- your daily life is so impacted pregnancy not to mention ability to work. It’s myopic to claim a reasonable amount of compensation negates the gift of surrogacy.
The law grinds slowly but it grinds. Prospective parents, DO lawyer up if you are thinking of anything related to producing a child overseas. Don't just assume everything works the way you want it to.
And look into ALL the laws that will apply, here and where ever the overseas place happens to be. The couples in this article, and any couples using fertility assistance should be aware of things before they make the plunge.
That includes all claims or responsibilities of donors, birth mothers - we're even at the point where a baby could have a biological father and two genetic mothers (one embryo, one maternal mitochondria donor).
Note, too, that couples who produce multiple fertile eggs may someday run afoul of the law in "personhood" states if they don't make every effort to bring every fertilized egg to birth.
There's been an awful lot of change in recent decades, and laws don't update themselves.
4
@b fagan Then maybe we should just go back to adopting orphaned children or just reproducing when we have all of the biological equipment to do is naturally.
2
Somethings don't add up in this story.
Why did they not get a surrogate in the US so the child could be born in the US? ; there would have been absolutely no issues with the child being an American citizen then. (Surely it could not have been because of money could it? Being born on the British NHS to British mother would have been 'free' (except to British tax payers) while being born to surrogate in US could have meant expensive medical costs for them?)
Mr. Gregg, the sperm donor, does not qualify to pass his US citizenship to his daughter. At best he obtained his citizenship in 2018. Current rules for passing on US citizenship states that if only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your overseas birth, (Mr Gregg would be that parent) that US parent must have resided in the U.S. for at least five years, and at least two of those years must have been after your parent reached the age of 14.
I don't think Mr Mize and Mr. Gregg have much to complain about - they tried to circumvent the system and have not succeeded. Mr Gregg could at this stage sponsor his child for an immediate immigration visa.
21
Mr Gregg was likely born a US citizen (the article mentions his mother is American).
1
@Bella
Likely but just as likely not, given immigration and citizenship rules.
1
I love how Trump supporters cite the need to be born in America to exclude people of color or children of same sex couples but when it works to include a child born of the same groups they call it an anchor baby.
5
This seems to be a niche situation in search of outrage. There are two relatively straightforward processes that would immediately resolve the situation: 1) ensure the donor parent is an American citizen 2) adopt the child.
25
While I am sympathetic to the families affected, the laws/rules are fairly clear. They didn't read them, if they had there would be no issue. I am half American, born in the US, though I have never lived in the US. I am also half Canadian, and have lived there for 5 years. The US required citizenship to be passed on by the parents only if I personally lived in the US for 5 years, and Canada's rules state you must be born in Canada to pass on citizenship. My wife is Lebanese, and in Lebanon the rules state only men can pass on citizenship. So if we have a child born outside of Canada or the US they would have no citizenship at birth.
I may disagree with these rules, but they are the rules.
These families can easily get a visa and then apply for citizenship after 5 years.
104
@CHR, the families in the article are saying that the rules are wrong and should be changed. Your comment comes across as saying that they shouldn't protest these laws, simply because they're laws, when laws can be changed and/or declared unconstitutional.
58
@CHR; Do you hold US citizenship? Do you pay taxes? The rules are out of synch with social reality these days and if they need to be challenged in court to be addressed then they should be. My daughter a US citizen (and only a US citizen) is born abroad - should she marry someone similar and simply never reside in the US but pay taxes...why shouldnt she / they be able to pass along citizenship? Again if this rather rare exaple - the child would be stateless if born overseas according to the "rules"...
26
@CHR
Not so accurate, and probably case dependent. I have a friend, born of Canadian parents while they were living in Italy, who had immediate inherent Canadian citizenship ... and also acquired Italian citizenship. The only one of his siblings to have both.
11
This is not a gay marriage issue. My husband is a US citizen and all three of our kids who were born overseas received their citizenship. However, this is only after proving every time that my husband had spent at least five years in the US. Without such proof, it would be possible to inherit US citizenship for generations without ever setting a foot in the US. And my kids who have lived their whole life outside of the US will need to either have their own children in the US or spend at least 5 years of their life in the US before being allowed to give citizenship to their own children. This only seems fair to me ? Unless the US wants to have generation of citizens that have never set a foot in the US?
30
Little Simone is so adorable!
12
That is generally not a problem when couples have babies the traditional way, but can prove tricky when only one spouse is the genetic parent, wrote the author
I preffer the traditional way to get kids of your own. Efficient, simple, not newswhorthy. Extended parenthood to same sex couples will require more accomodations for a minority who always find someone at an editor desk to print their deplorable Orwellian dramatic Old-Testament experiences.
8
The article maybe not indicating the full story, which is if the British born person to an American mother became a British citizen as an adult. If this is the case and didn’t obtain legal status after marriage since marriage doesn’t automatically turn a person to a US Citizen, the child being from his sperm and from the egg of another foreigner would not make the child a citizen.
5
“It runs counter to the current societal understanding of what marriage is,” he said. “And probably more important, it runs counter to the current legal definition of what parentage is."
It runs counter to any conceivable notion of human decency.
This is absolutely outrageous and really must be corrected immediately. What, are we living in the Dark Ages? How in the world can anyone think it's okay to do this to children and parents?
9
Although this law predates him, one person who certainly wholeheartedly approves of this law is sitting in the Oval Office.
1
The issue would be the same for a non-same sex marriage, it has to do with the five year qualification for citizenship of the now American parent. The genetic parent for Kessem was not an American citizen when she was born. An American man's child is not automatically a citizen if his noncitizen wife is the birth mother, and he is not the genetic father.
17
Anyone checked the latest USA birthrate statistics? At the rate we’re going there will be insufficient payments into social security in the not too distant future. Meanwhile . . .
2
"Same-sex couples who have babies abroad through assisted reproductive technology face a major complication: Their children may not be American."
Again, it's unnecessary provoking and incorrect. It's has nothing to do with same-sex, or even couples. The biological parent has to be an American citizen AND had lived in the USA five years.
13
How is this discrimination against same-sex couples? If Mr Mize were instead Ms Mize who married Mr Gregg, conception involved Mr Gregg's sperm, a donor egg, and a surrogate, and the baby was born overseas, the answer would still be that the baby is not an American citizen at birth.
I believe the child can become an American citizen automatically after being adopted by Mr Mize and living with him for two years. He would probably want to adopt her regardless of the citizenship issue to preserve his parental rights. This situation is not the hopeless quagmire the Times is suggesting.
I don't believe the State Department's rules should be changed. Technically speaking, these children are born out-of-wedlock if the sperm and egg providers do not match married parents. As stated above, there are provisions allowing children in these situations to become citizens.
13
The Republicans ever since Trump took office have shown that they love to break up families. Not EVERY Republican - there are hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, who do not. But certainly the vast majority of Republicans today, and certainly every Republican leader in Congress and in the Administration. For them this is a new opportunity, made especially sweet for millions of Republicans because it also harms gays and foreign born babies.
Most Republicans, though in many states a smaller majority than for separating families, want the federal government to intrude into abortion and other private family decisions.
And for their President, Republicans wanted and still want a master of adultery who brags about how he grabs the female parts of unwilling women.
Family values? Just a facade.
3
Even if these couples were adopting a baby born outside the US, and s/he had no biological connection to either parent, the fact that two Americans in a legal marriage are committed to caring for and housing the child would seem more than enough to make her a citizen. LOVE makes a family. (And “Out of wedlock” sounds so Handmaid’s Tale...and heterohegemonic.)
4
I feel so awful for these good parents. This law is obviously antiquated, retrograde and unfair.
But my biggest sympathy lies with the child, who now has no country.
This country has become monstrous under this adminstration.
5
Is it just me or is this way too intrusive. If the parents are citizens, the child is a citizen. Why should it be our business what country the sperm or egg donors are citizens? This is too much. This feels like real discrimination.
4
@MJ : Haven't you heard? The GOP is the party of hands-off govt -- except when it comes to women's bodies, LGBTQIA people's bedrooms, and picking the pockets of the 99% to further subsidize the super-rich.
3
What a nightmare.
4
Step one: Deny citizenship to a child of American parents.
Step two: Place child in cage.
(oh wait, that's nothing new...)
6
This is a travesty. This is not the America I thought I knew. This administration is shameless and inhumane.
3
This is crazy. So we allow pregnant woman from Russia, China, Nigeria, etc. to come here and give birth for the sole purpose of their infant having US citizenship. But we deny the child of US citizens citizenship.
13
There is no new low that this illegitimate government will not stoop to in order to further their cruel agenda. Cruelty alone is the common thread uniting their agenda and their supporters. Shame on America. I truly despise my adopted country.
5
@David B
I hear your anger but your statement of despising America is uncalled-for. If you despise it, why do you live here? Call for change, speak out but don't resort to such ridiculous nonsense. I suggest that you read 'The Man Without a Country.' A great story about a man whose mouth overtook his brain.
3
Won't these republicans ever stop?
5
@Tom : No, they won't. They're relentless, as they've shown, and freakishly devious -- which is why everyone else has to
1. vote in EVERY election, at every level (bc statehouse elections determine redistricting, which has led to falsely GOP-hevay districts, and bc narrow-minded judges at the local level can have a terrible impact on the lives of millions of Americans);
2. call their GOP reps and sens to object to every lousy piece of legislation that destroys what America was and could be; and
3. actively engage in bringing about change. Join Indivisible or MoveOn. Act! Do!
Tell everyone you know to do all of the above. Look at what Dem complacency has brought us: Even after Dems regain the WH in 2020, we'll be cleaning up the GOP-made mess for 20 years.
1
I am so done with this witch hunt. Leave these families alone!
9
This is ridiculous, and shows the meanness and stupidity of the religious right and their quest to move the US back to the dark ages. If you have a married couple where one of the parents is American, and they have a child, that child should be a citizen. And I am very, very sure, that while this the way the law is written applies to either same sex or opposite sex couples, de facto likely it is applied only to same sex couples (ie de facto law). More importantly, the whole concept is idiotic, this fetish about biological parents and genetics is absurd; a child doesn't know or care about genes, it knows its parents, and in a case like this where you have a US citizen that child, whether biologically theirs or not, is meaningless, the child is theirs, born to a citizen parent.
This is nothing more than religious bigotry ensconced as law. The irony is the people who you can get most are saying 'that child is not a US citizen" are those who go around claiming they are pro life and pro family and pro children, yet what this translates into is 'the child of a same sex couple is subhuman, not fit to be a human citizen'..shame on them, and shame on the rest of the so called religious who have let these mean, ugly people increasingly control this country, under the guise of "I can't criticize them, they are my brothers and sisters"..give me a break
43
Many donor-conceived people do care about “biological parents and genetics”, because the fertility industry and the people raising them cut them off from half of their lineage, and along with it their connection to grandparents and cousins and half siblings and so on. Just like the adoptees who spoke up and defended their rights to know where they come from, donor-conceived people are calling attention to the inherent injustice of so-called third-party reproduction. Biology does matter to them, and they deserve to be heard.
24
@Noelle
This child has been robbed of her biological mother for god's sake......
5
@Noelle this is interesting, have you been affected by this personally?
Just when I think I've heard the most absurd thing I can hear, I hear worse. These two men are American citizens married to one another. Their child is an American citizen, period. No other interpretation makes any sense, unless you are going to say any child born outside the country, even to American citizens in a "traditional" family of one man and and one woman, can't be a citizen unless naturalized. Insane, inhuman, and where are the "right to lifers" on this one? Silent, that's where.
50
The hate, and make no mistake this is hate, from the Republican Administration is insane. This has nothing to do with national security. If an American married straight couple adopts a child abroad, that child is granted US citizenship. These actions from this administration is discriminatory and hateful. It is saying not all marriages are equal.
27
Missed the point - these couples didn’t adopt - instead they used surrogates. Same ruling would apply if heterosexual couple used surrogates overseas. Non-US births for Americans is full of red tape. Then add legal complexity of surrogates birth. For sure you need a lawyer when doing both st same time. I feel sorry for these couples but they should have seen this coming.
20
@Still Waiting for a NBA Title This has nothing to do with Republicans. Nor does it have anything to do with gender. Not everything does, you know. Yours is a kneejerk reaction.
9
@Still Waiting for a NBA Title
These laws and standards predate Republicans and have been enforced by Democrat administrations too.
2
Where are the supposedly pro-life voices in support of these babies?
443
@DR
You may have noticed that the "pro-life" people don't wish to take care of the children they want saved. They just want to punish the mothers (or in this case, the fathers).
There is a lot of insanity going on in our government right now.
171
@DR
As someone who is pro-life, Christian, and conservative, I don't think that what's happening makes sense, given that foreign born children who are adopted gain citizenship automatically.
18
@DR
Well, the babies have been born, so they are no longer of any concern, obviously. That's always been the case with "pro-life" hypocrites.
28
Sure, Congress should fix the law, but the policy can easily be amended by the State Department and it certainly don't have to appeal cases when gay couples win in court. This policy is cruel to families formed by transnational adoption and a painful reminder of the discrimination the LGBTQ community faces.
3
This is so reminiscent of a religious objection and denial of adoption in the 1950s. A young couple wanted to adopt me and my siblings from a Catholic orphanage. The un-catholic Catholic court declared the couple a "mixed marriage" (she, Protestant; he, Catholic), ipso facto: unmarried. They could not adopt Catholic children unless one of them converted. We children lived in the orphanage until we aged out.
16
This all makes me think of the Harry Potter stories.
Our government approach is that espoused by the Lord Voldemort, a.k.a. "He Who Should Not Be Named".
These people are, as he calls them, Mud Bloods and not to be accepted in the Wizarding World.
Personally I stand with Harry Potter that Wizards are Wizards and belong in our world!
3
My heart goes out to the families being effected by this policy. The law needs to catch up to the 21st century. Are people supposed t wait at least five years before they have kids? This seems grossly unfair.
5
Are the America - Italian lesbian couple living in the UK legally married? Where was the sperm donor from?
If they were not married when the Italian woman gave birth, and if the birth did not happen in the US, and especially if the sperm was not from an American nor conception happened in America, it seems perfectly reasonable and makes sense that her child is not (yet) American.
If my heterosexual Italian cousin is impregnated by an Italian or Swiss or Chinese or Peruvian national, and the birth happens in the UK, and then mom becomes romantically committed to an American, that last fact doesn't make her or the baby American unless and until they are naturalized.
IF the Italian woman's sperm donor had been an American (especially US-born American), perhaps that would change things. Or perhaps if the women had also carried each other's zygote to term, especially with an American donor, that would have changed things.
Here is a related question:
Is there a point, generationally, beyond which the overseas progeny of Americans living and birthing abroad can claim US citizen ship? Presumably, the great, great, great grandchildren of an American child born overseas could all be American citizens even if none of them or their family had even once stepped foot in the United States, correct?
3
The cruelty's the point, that's the criteria for a lot of this Administration's actions.
10
Does that mean when U. S. citizens adopts a baby born in another country, say Russia, that child is not an American citizen? I'm waiting for this administration to cancel the rising of the sun in the east. I live in California and I tired of looking at those beautiful sunsets over the Pacific Ocean.
3
What if they 'adopted' their child ? or is a same-sex marriage not acceptable for adoption ?
1
What are the limits of citizenship by sperm? Suppose a US citizen acts as sperm donor in a foreign county and that some large number, for example more than 100, children are born using his sperm. Does that mean that all those children are now US citizens? Does it mean that US citizens can sell sperm on an open market with guaranteed US citizenship? Somewhere there need to be limits.
8
@Craig Warden That's not the case here. This article talks about children born to and parented by Americans who live in the USA.
@Craig Warden I’d be interested to know the legal answer to this question
Question: If a single woman, who is an American citizen, gives birth in a country other than the US, is the child automatically American or not? Does it matter from what country the sperm came from (whether via sexual relations or artificial insemination)?
1
@Lady, Yes, the child would be a citizen.
@Lady
it's not automatic. Because the case of a single woman would be defined as "out of wedlock" the following State Department policy requiring the 5 year residency period would apply:
"In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 1678 (2017), a person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother and alien father on or after June 12, 2017, may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a period of five years, two after the age of fourteen under Section 301(g) of the INA.
In all cases, the U.S. citizen mother must be the genetic or the gestational mother and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship."
The biological father is American! You don’t need to even discuss any other points. Case closed.
1
Not surprised that the so-called "pro-life" party will go out of their way to abuse children by taking away their inalienable rights, if the parents are a same-sex couple. Just pile it on with all the other indignities that extremist right-wingers have heaped on minorities in the last two years,
6
I realize the NY Times will do anything to demonize the US immigration system, but this is a lot more complicated than "US refuses to grant citizenship to child of gay couple because...you know...they're gay." The child was born to a surrogate mother. A child born to a surrogate mother (regardless of whether or not donor egg was used) is considered to be the child of that mother, and that goes back to "Baby M" and that's because no pre-birth legal contract can force a birth mother to give up her child if she doesn't want to. So the legal mother is not, in fact, American. So then the issue becomes, how does the genetic father establish paternity and how is custody awarded. Once all of this is straightened out (and using a surrogate is a very complicated legal route to go, and one which is far beyond the US immigration laws to rule on) then you have a legal order in which one of the men in this article is established as the custodial parent. Then you proceed to apply for citizenship for the child. The fact that the legal father happens to be married to another American is irrelevant unless that person legally adopts the child. Children are not like objects that can be gifted from one person to another.
18
Did it ever occur to look into this BEFORE the child arrived ?
6
Neither of these guys bothered to do their research- all they had to do was clear it with the US Embassy beforehand and there would have been no problem. American LGBTQ living abroad doesn't grant diplomatic immunity.
3
Clear what with the US Embassy?
@Aaron
Who said anything about diplomatic immunity? This concerns a question of birthright citizenship or the lack of it.
@Eliza
THE BABY! I am an American My Partner is British - We are having a child and need to fill out the paperwork with the US Embassy and begin the process to make her a US citizen!
My Goodness do I have to spell it out for you?
3
The comments reflect how little Americans know about their government. Congress makes and changes these laws and rules governing immigration. A beauacrat can not dictate rules based upon their whims. Our Congress gets a low approval rating for a reason. They need to do their job.
3
It’s a 1950’s law, that needs to be changed. Of course, the Trump administration doesn’t care about equality or fairness!
Please folks...VOTE!
2
How about finding a surrogate stateside? I’m sorry but this “problem” feels rather fabricated.
5
Let's not split hairs here. Of all the outrageous things I've seen from this administration -- corruption, child separation and deaths at the border, saber rattling, white supremacy, the congenital lying, you name it -- this is one that really makes me outraged. What POSSIBLY could be a defensible reason to not automatically make these children U.S. citizens?
2
This is so disgusting on the part of the State Department. Maybe it's time for folks to get out and vote. Vote Dems.
1
Brilliant thinking by an administration allegedly devoted to motherhood, apple pie, families, and the American way. There is no bottom to how low this country can stoop.
1
Can they adopt their daughter? Children adopted from abroad by American parents are now granted Citizenship when the first enter the US. It isn’t Citizenship at birth or because of birth but it is still Citizenship.
@Alexandra Hamilton That seems to be the consensus of any practical recommendations in these comments
I would think that with all the research they had to do and the money spent, they would have checked what U.S. policy is before going with this plan in a foreign country.
6
The article is very confusion about the couple's specific circumstances. On the State Department webpage linked to the article, it says that a child acquires U.S. citizenship if one biologically related parent is a U.S. citizen. Okay. So if Mr. Gregg is a U.S. citizen, as mentioned in the lede, and if he's the biological father, then why is the child's citizenship even in question? Doesn't she automatically qualify for citizenship, just as Mr. Gregg himself acquired his U.S. citizenship from his mother?
1
@Jay
i think the problem is the residency requirement for passing on citizenship for children born out of wedlock to US Citizens abroad. Though the men are married under US law, the child of the British surrogate is considered out of wedlock offspring, and Mr. Gregg did not live in the US for five years prior to the child's birth.
I don't understand this at all. Didn't the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Obergefell legalize gay marriage? If so, why doesn't the U.S. State Department (and every other federal agency) recognize such marriages? My daughter was born in Guatemala. I adopted her when she was an infant. We share no DNA. However, the Child Citizenship of Act of 2000 confirmed her status as an American citizen. She has had a U.S. passport proving it since she was five. I am dumbfounded that the children mentioned in this article do not have the same status as my daughter.
237
@Lorraine What these parents want is birthright citizenship that is conferred immediately and would enable their daughter to run for president rather than waiting five years so she would be eligible for naturalization.
17
@BB
And I think their children should have that right. As I wrote, I don't understand why the State Department is allowed to view gay marriages as less-than. Either gay marriage is legal in this countru or it is not.
22
@BB
Your answer is correct until the part about waiting 5 years. There is no requirement to wait 5 years (however, the adoptive US citizen parent must have met the same 5 year residency test that applies to birthright citizenship applications where only one parent is a US citizen). See 8 USC 1433(a).
12
Surely there is a solution available- how do children adopted from other countries (no blood connection) become citizens?
64
@Maura NJ It's not immediate and that is what it appears they want.
6
@Maura NJ
They register with the US Embassy and fill out the appropriate paper work! My goodness.. These two guys could have done the same thing and they skipped a very important step and now they are caught in a legal loop. Their fault- Not Trumps or the US Government. How hard is it to follow the rules?
15
@Aaron there are people who refuse to obey rules and law—and get offended when they suffer the consequences.
10
What a cruel and inhumane policy.
13
Should have applied to the Justice Department which handles visa applications.
Mr Mize is a former lawyer and should ahve known that.
No short cuts and the law exists for a reason.
Exploitation of foreigners to bring back babies is a problem. What did they pay the surrogate? And why didn't they pay a surrogate here?
Too many questions unanswered in the story which is typical.
The bleeding heart side is quick to rush to the media.
We saw this first hand in Romania back in 1990-1991.
Americans rushing over to adopt kids unfamiliar with US law. They found themselves the proud parents of kids after going through the Romania courts only to find that they didn't have approval to bring the child back into the United States.
Some of us (most of us) followed the law and we had no problems. The cheaters and those cutting in line rushed to the media declaring that the U.S. Government was being 'mean' or 'unfair', when just the opposite was true.
If Mr. Mize and Gregg love this child, then will move to Great Britain.
Problem solved.
50
@Erica Smythe
The Dept of State handles passport applications not the Justice Department. In the case of foreign adoptions, consular officials may not be satisfied the birth mother has in fact signed off on the adoption and that can prevent the child from receiving a US visa. It is not the adoptive parents they distrust but local officials.
Why this married couple chose to use a surrogate in Britain is their business. Their daughter lacks citizenship but that doesn't mean she has been barred from entering the US. Lots of differences with transnational adoption.
14
@Erica Smythe If you try reading the article, you will discover that the surrogate is a "close friend" of the couple.
You sound like a really nice person.
10
@Erica Smythe
The surrogate was a friend. Paid surrogacy is not legal in Britain.
9
This policy is wrong and its enforcement is un-American. The "leaders" in this administration have vicious Orwellian and Old Testament "values" as they stop progress, thinking, and change to roll America back to 1950. This is another assault leading to a death by a thousand cuts for REAL AMERICANS.
8
“Using ...sperm from her British born Father”. So the sperm that helped create the child isn’t a biological connection?? This is a ridiculous loophole that needs to be closed by reality. It’s irrational, adoptees with zero “biological connection” are allowed to “immigrate” from other countries. Really important that this is being brought to light. Enough of trying to twist rules into something for which they were never intended in order to exclude gay people from society.
36
As a person who was adopted, please refrain from calling people who have been adopted, "adoptees." Yes, on occasion, I will refer to myself as an adoptee. But with all sincerity, I find it pejorative to have this label placed upon me by someone who has not themselves had this experience. So, please refrain from doing so in the future (unless of course, you as well are adopted).
6
@ryan Respecting your feelings, how would you then describe someone who had been adopted, in the context of this conversation?
4
But that's what you are. Not sure why an adopted person being called an adoptee is a problem. It is not an insult or slur, but a descriptive term.
2
If not born on US soil [or US military or US embassy installation] the baby is not a US citizen.
The rules are clear- These men look well educated- they should have done their homework!
Why do you think so many thousands of Central American women enter the US illegally? They know having their child in the US grants the baby automatic birthright citizenship!
28
@Aaron
Your summary is legally incorrect--a baby born anywhere in the world gets US citizenship at birth if one of the parents is American--provided a number-of-years-in-the-US rule is met. I was born in the US and my children were born abroad and got their citizenship through me at birth (non-American mother).
This article shows that while it may have been historically logical decades ago to require a biological connection to an American parent to get citizenship, with the broader, society-approved options for creating families today, this results in unconscionable situations for families like these. The State Department needs to update its rules to support modern reality or if not permissible, Congress must act.
I agree though that these families should really have done their homework first--my wife and I did lots of research about the possible citizenship repercussions of where our children would be born.
43
@Aaron Actually that isn't correct. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/birth-abroad.html - you don't have to be attached to the US Military or Embassy and you definitely DO NOT have to be born on the installation. It should be noted that NOT every installation or embassy compound has a hospital with a maternity ward. Sometimes people will be sent to one that does but other times babies are born "out in town." This is definitely the case if the mother has no affiliation to military or department of state.
6
@Aaron
Huh? "If not born on US soil... the baby is not a US citizen"?
Then why does the US State Department website say otherwise? "A person born abroad in wedlock to a U.S. citizen and an alien acquires U.S. citizenship at birth if the U.S. citizen parent has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the person’s birth for the period required by the statute in effect when the person was born (INA 301(g), formerly INA 301(a)(7).)"
Source: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html
18
I don't see a big problem here. Once the child has been in the U.S. 5 years, her parents can apply for U.S. citizenship for her. I came to the U.S. from England in 1966 and in 1971 became a U.S. citizen along with my parents.
20
@Julia Kotowski
The issue is equal treatment under the law. This is unequal treatment. But if its not a big deal, we could make all children wait 5 years for citizenship. Not.
48
@Julia Kotowski
"Once the child has been in the U.S. 5 years,"
But according to the story, she has been given only a tourist visa, so he has to go back and forth to England,
What kind of visa did you have?
5
@Julia Kotowski: The child cannot stay in the U.S. for five consecutive years on a tourist visa. What kind of visa did your parents have? Apparently one that allowed them to work. How does that apply to a young child?
You must have missed the part in the article that stated "Mr. Mize, whose daughter is now 11 months old and learning to walk, feels a similar stress. He said he had been traveling back and forth to Britain with Simone, who has a tourist visa."
5
Apparently, the current administration has made the laws more complex and incompressible. Hypothetically the baby girl has attained 1/4 of the America-Born American citizenship so the status is denied. However, the typical and lawful requirements depend on the current nationality of one parent or both parents which most of us believe. One of her fathers is currently a neutralized American citizen (despite his birth place), logically the baby girl should be granted the status. It is also subsumed into adoption. Both America-Born parents of any types shall see the rejection of the nationality of the adopted children.
1
Undocumented immigrants know if they deliver a baby in America, the baby is an automatic citizen, so it is a ploy for parents to be able to "stay." So, why should conscientious, loving and self-supporting American citizens, who want children and choose surrogacy to become parents, have to suffer due to the injustice of a law that does not recognize contemporary methods of becoming parents? Shouldn't these babies get the same consideration of those born in America to undocumented parents?
19
I don't understand - same sex and other couples adopt foreign born children all the time. These children become American citizens with ease. So because there is no "adoption process" in place, this process does not work? Does not make sense.
35
@Deb
Children who are adopted transnationally now gain automatic US citizenship. This is partly because there have been several high-profile deportations of people who grew up in the US but their adopted parents never bothered to complete the naturalization process. They were sent back to countries they had left as infants. Still, such adoptees don't enjoy birthright citizenship that requires a biological connection to the parent.
2
@Deb surrogacy and adoption are totally different legal processes, at least in places where commercial surrogacy is legal. People who use surrogates are often incredibly insulted at the suggestion that they adopt their children. (Believe me, as a labor and delivery nurse, I’ve been corrected by them often). Adoption is under family law- the birth mother has parental rights and voluntarily terminates them after the child is born- and she can change her mind within a time frame. The surrogate, on the other hand, has zero rights. Surrogacy is under contract law, and the woman who gives birth is not ever referred to as the mother, and cannot change her mind. She signed a contract, money was paid, the end (remember the Baby M case from the 80s). The parents who get a child this way are called the intended parents from the start. The woman giving birth was the womb for rent, unlike an adoptive mother. This is why adoption and surrogacy are treated differently in citizenship matters.
1
Lawyer and US citizen living abroad here with two kids born overseas. This article raises a real issue, but it inaccurately conflates and mixes up two separate points and hence gives an inaccurate overall impression of what is going on. American citizenship law currently says that citizenship at birth can be transmitted (1) by being born on US soil; and (2) by being born to a US citizen who QUALIFIES TO TRANSMIT TWO CITIZENSHIP. To qualify to transmit US citizenship by birth to a baby born off US soil, the American citizen must have adequate ties to the US, which federal law specifies as having spent enough time living on US soil (5 years, 4 of which were over the age of 14).
Under CURRENT law, marital status is basically irrelevant, unlike in the past when there were different rules for married and unmarried parents.The issue with Mr. Gregg has nothing to do with the fact that he is gay, or with the state of his marriage. The issue is that he does not YET qualify to transmit US citizenship to any child. If he was straight and married to a woman, the same result would obtain. Similarly, my US citizen children do not (yet?) qualify to transmit US citizenship because they have never lived in the US. That rule makes sense, otherwise 5th generation kids born abroad would still have US citizenship. The ART rules are designed to make sure genetic material is transmitted, and are really not the issue here -- the 5 year rule is.
106
@Frequent Commenter The problem lies with the intersection between the length-of-time-in-the-US requirement, and the biological requirement. In the case of male same-sex couples, by definition only one may carry a biological connection to the child. Should his child happen to be from the sperm of his spouse (who may be a US citizen but does not meet the 5 years' requirement) we have a problem. If BOTH are deemed as legal parents under the US constitution, it should be enough that ONE of the the parents meets the 5 years requirement, regardless of who's sperm the child is from. That the biological connection should not matter is even clearer in case there are twin brothers, one with a biological connection to one parent (satisfying the 5-Y-rule) and the other from the sperm of the other (who does not). Both share the same surrogate (who is not a US citizen). This is the other case referred to in the article, in which a Federal judge granted citizenship (currently under appeal). The two brothers should be allowed to live in the US together, and not suffer a split.
7
@Frequent Commenter "born to" is also an issue though, isn't it? That's why Mr. MIze cannot transmit citizenship to Simone, even though he would otherwise qualify. Simone is not his biological child. Mr. Gregg's ability to transmit citizenship matters because it's (biologically) his kid.
5
@Frequent Commenter
I am also a lawyer and US citizen living abroad with two kids born overseas (to whom I transmitted US citizenship; my wife is not a citizen). You're mostly right but a few points bear clarification:
(1) the 5-year residency rule (which requires 2, not 4, years after the age of 14, w/ exceptions for US mil. or gov't service abroad) applies where one parent is not a US citizen. See 8 USC 1401(g). (It was 1 year for female citizens, but SCOTUS struck this down as discriminatory in 2017 so now it's 5 years for all.)
But if both parents are US citizens, the baby is too if EITHER parent had a residence in the US for any period of time prior to the birth (5 years not required). See 8 USC 1401(c). This could apply in the case of lesbian parents but not gays (who need a surrogate). Possible grounds for a challenge under SCOTUS's decision in Obergefell.
(2) US embassies warn of the possible need for DNA testing to prove a biological connection. But I was told that this is not applied to married couples. (E.g., I didn't have to prove that my alien spouse wasn't impregnated by another alien. (I could have!) Another basis for an Obergefell challenge?
N.b. 8 USC 1409 allows US fathers to legitimate out of wedlock kids born abroad. No 5 year residency rule here either. In theory Mr Gregg could divorce his husband, marry the surrogate, legitimate the kid, divorce the surrogate, remarry his husband who could then adopt the US citizen kid. Farcical, but legal.
11
My beef here is not with the State Department. The couple should have checked with an attorney or the government agency that controls this issue.
19
I have concern about the general case regardless, but concerning the specific case that the article leads off with, I am very confuse? The article states that current policy is that for a foreign born child to be an American citizen, it must have a "biological connection" to at least one American citizen parent? Isn't that satisfied in this case, the man whose sperm was used to inseminate the surrogate -- in fact BOTH men -- are American citizens? So how is THIS child not a citizen under current law?
9
Reread the article. The sperm donor was a U.K. citizen. The two American men do not have a biological connection.
2
@Graham That's not correct. Mr. Gregg is the biological father, but has not been a U.S. citizen for five years.
1
@Graham Try re-rereading it. The second sentence in the article states that the biological father is a U.S. citizen
And there is worry that not enough "American" children are being born annually??
The more I watch "The Practice"-- the more I know that the laws often make no sense and that juries and DAs are not be trusted.
Quite dreadful.. (needs a better wordl)
6
If, as so many women state in another article in today’s NYT, women are in control of their bodies and can decide whether or not to have an abortion (or to be a surrogate), it sounds to me as if the legal context and residence/nationality of the mother are the governing authority in the situation, along with, of course, relevant US policy.
Odd that one of the gentlemen parents is a lawyer and missed this very critical point of US law/policy, as I am sure the pair did considerable due diligence in locating and contracting with the surrogate.
Takeaway for mixed- or same-sex couples contemplating using a foreign surrogate: Hire a lawyer who is familiar and experienced with relevant US procedures, laws and policies.
10
This made me cry. And sounds like a Handmaid's Tale episode.
17
@am
Why did you cry?
The girl is just traveling once a year outside the US, has two parents who love her- she is not in foster care.
'Frequent Commenter' in his comment explains the legal situation.
2
Awful situation for this family and, especially, for the child.
On the other hand, gay men (or anyone) using women's bodies as for-hire incubators is grotesque, imho (which I realize is an uncommon opinion these days). Going overseas for easier to find and less expensive "surrogates" is exploitative almost beyond words.
And as a former lawyer, he had reason to know of this legal obstacle, or at least done due diligence research before bringing a child into the world -- one who is now a pawn in the game of immigration politics.
32
@FEMM thank you!! Agreed!! Women’s wombs should not be for rent to anyone, gay or straight. And babies are not for sale- surrogacy falls under contract law, not family law, as does adoption does. A child is not a Right. No one is entitled to a child, not infertile couples, not gay people, no one. Sorry if that’s inconvenient, or even heartbreaking to some, but that’s how it is- or should be.
4
@FEMM, You jumped to judgment without actually reading the article. A close friend of this gay couple chose to be the surrogate! What more beautiful gift could a close friend give to a lovely couple longing to be parents.
10
@FEMM Agree about surrogacy. Talk about treating women just as incubators.
3
The “rule” is not legal, these kids have an American’ parent, seems like the administration can enforce rules that are outside of the law without fear of prosecution.
9
I have two US citizen kids born abroad. As a previous commentator stated, it’s the qualification to pass on citizenship that is the problem. When my children were born, I had to prove (their father too) that we had lived at least 5 years in the US. The problem is the British-born American parent hasn’t lived enough years in the US - he doesn’t quality to pass on the citizenship. That’s it. It would be the same for anyone.
This article should have made this very clear. It’s just one of the joys of the expat life (not)....
19
@Alina
If you and your husband were BOTH required to prove 5 years' worth of residency (i.e., you both are US citizens), then that just goes to show that some consular officers don't know what they're doing. When both parents are US citizens it suffices to prove that EITHER parent maintained a residence in the US prior to the child's birth (see 8 USC 1408(c)).
2
That s weird, because children adopted overseas become citizens. What's the difference?
4
@Suzy Both parents would be Americans. In this case, the surrogate was not.
2
The difference is: an adoption process is initiated. The State Dept. is aware the child is not biologically theirs. It’s different than passing down citizenship.
The people adopting the child may be US citizens by birth or naturalized and have met the 5 year requirement.
This couple is not adopting a child, the child belongs biologically to the British born man, who was naturalized but had not met the 5 year requirement.
1
No, only one parent of an adopted child has to be American. I am a single parent and my adopted daughter recurved Citizenship as soon as she entered the US.
1
As an adoptee I am horrified by this. To think that your family can be legally unraveled while you are a baby? On purpose? How can these people call themselves pro-life when they are only “pro” about lives they approve of?
14
@H. G. Adoption is conducted under a different body of law than surrogacy— adoption falls under family law and surrogacy is governed by contract law. That’s why it’s different. In surrogacy money changes hands and the mother is not recognized at all as a parent, unlike in adoption where women have rights to change their minds, etc.
3
Just when you think that you cannot be outraged any further- this is discrimination against this couple and their child. The law needs to be changed before they lose their child- and what will happen to her? Who are these men and women who pass such laws? Do they ever stop to think whose lives they and rights they trample on? Do they step outside of their tiny, inane, political worlds and experience real people? It might just wake them up to something other than themselves.
11
What is really ridiculous here is that Simone, the daughter of these two American men, cannot be a citizen. But consider the many Chinese couples who come to the USA for a few weeks on tourist visas just so their children have birthright citizenship. These kids get citizenship, even though they and their parents return to China right away. This is pretty messed up.
10
Why did these guys not know the law?
Or did they know but decided the NYT would advocate for their right to ignore it?
if it is an unpopular law the House should immediately address the issue. What else are they busy with?
7
A very easy problem for congress to fix. Well, who am I kidding? Congress fixing problems nowadays?
5
What a stupid waste of everyone’s time. These are the parents and obviously no one is going this Byzantine route to parenthood to somehow game the system of immigration laws.
That said, I’m surprised there’s no mention of international adoption in this article. As a band-aid approach for these urgent cases, would adoption by one of the American parents take care of the citizenship issue? When my American husband and I (also an American) adopted our daughter from Korea, we encountered no difficulties on the path to getting her citizenship.
296
There's a situation in my family quite like this. My cousin met a woman from a Pacific country online, visited her, and she became pregnant. Because of some silly errors, and confusing regulations, they haven't married, but he wants to bring this woman and their child to the US. The child is almost 2, and he's still trying. It's a very difficult situation to be in, and may never be resolved satisfactorily. These cases should be resolved on a one to one basis, by someone with some compassion, and not just a reference to an outdated, one size fits all law.
16
@MM I’m not surprised at all. They knew exactly what they were doing, these guys are not stupid. If they didn’t want it to be exploited into yet another manufactured crisis, they simply would have used the other husband’s sperm, or a surrogate in the US.
16
That’s what I was thinking. Or is because one of the spouses in each case hasn’t lived in the U.S. for five years?
6
As an adoptee, who was born abroad and has no "biological" connections to my parents, my situation is similar and legally indistinguishable from this girl's.
I empathize with this couple. It is the unfortunate situation that real people lives get caught up in determining what the law actually is. But this is not discrimination. At least not anymore than I was discriminated against by not receiving citizenship simply by the fact that I was the child of my parents.
I feel for this child and couple. Yes, gay couples have additional challenges in creating a family when they choose to do so involving children born in other countries. And yes, adoptions involving children born in other countries have additional challenges and legal hurdles. Differences in our world, and country, exist. But not every difference equates to legal discrimination.
57
@ryan Adoption is conducted under a different body of law than surrogacy— adoption falls under family law and surrogacy is governed by contract law. That’s why it’s different. In surrogacy money changes hands and the mother is not recognized at all as a parent, unlike in adoption where women have rights to change their minds, etc. Adoption is about transferring parental rights for a child already created. Surrogacy is about creating a child and establishing a contract prior - almost always for money.
4
@CA123. Your comment actually proves my point. (so thank you). Both adoption and surrogacy involve legal agreements subject to government law and regulation. My point exactly.
There's no reason to make a distinction between these types of agreements, unless you're saying that $$ is overriding factor here. Oh... by the way, although surrogacy involves a contract and would be subject to common law contract principles, this does not in any way mean it is also not part of family law. It clearly is. Also, like adoption, some jurisdictions allow surrogates rescind their surrogacy agreement, which demonstrates the immateriality of the pre/post-birth distinction and further demonstrates surrogacy's place in family law.
Thank you for describing these differences but ultimately demonstrating why the law does and should treat these situations the same.
2
Ryan, your situation would be dramatically different today. You would be an American citizen by birth. Their child is on the verge of being deported!
5
The State Department established guidelines based on a law from the 1950s. So if our society has changed so much perhaps this is something Congress can fix. These people are caught up in a bad situation and is nothing they could have anticipated. But to blame the current administration is absurd.
39
@Dave Hoffman What is the law from the 1950's?
@Dave Hoffman -- Blaming the current admin is the correct thing to do, because if you read the article closely you'll have read that one of the couples now encountering a problem *didn't* in Jan. 2017, when a human person occupied or was just leaving the WH such that the irrational and sadistic automata now in charge hadn't yet gotten their hands all over policy.
7
@lynn Read the Immigration and Naturalization Act of that time and you will wee what the law says. people are always spouting off about a law without having ever read the law and its legislative history.
1
I'm curious why this isn't treated the same way as a child who is adopted from a foreign nation. As I understand it (via a Google search), those children become citizens based on the Child Citizen Act of 2000. The situation seems similar, to me.
14
@hicycles
Well actually the 5 year residency rule applies to foreign adoptions too. See 8 USC 1433(a). In other words, Mr Gregg could not adopt his daughter and obtain citizenship for her, but his husband could.
Anyway, they were proceeding under a different section of the Immigration & Naturalization Act, which concerns acquisition of citizenship at birth as opposed to naturalization (e.g. by way of adoption).
2
Shouldn't most or all of these cases be identical to that of adoption? I mean, we have biological/birth parents and then we have civil/adoptive parents. Although biological and civil parenthood usually overlaps, it doesn't always, and that's why we have laws governing adoption. Or have I missed something?
8
@Greg Shenaut
I was thinking the same thing. You just beat me by 4 minutes...
2
Adoption is conducted under a different body of law than surrogacy— adoption falls under family law and surrogacy is governed by contract law. That’s why it’s different. In surrogacy money changes hands and the mother is not recognized at all as a parent, unlike in adoption where women have rights to change their minds, etc. Adoption is about transferring parental rights for a child already created. Surrogacy is about creating a child and establishing a contract prior - almost always for money. @Greg Shenaut
2
@Greg Shenaut Trust me...when parents are desperate to get kids...they will find every loophole imaginable.
Two Americans paying a surrogate $5,000 in another country isn't illegal in the U.S., but to stop it from becoming a trade..the US Government has Immigration laws in place to prevent the exploitation of foreigners who might be used as baby factories.
Good call!
1
This is very worrying, and is a part of a trend to narrowly define who is a citizen of this country. As a parent of an adopted child ,now 16, I see no difference in this situation and my own.
Will my daughter someday be stripped of her citizenship?
20
@MP, If your child is foreign born and you applied for, and received citizenship for her or him, then no, citizenship will not be taken away. My son was only 1 1/2 years old when he was sworn in as a citizen, my wife and I doing the honors for him, at the Federal courthouse in Newark.
5
As a person who was adopted from another country, I actually take the other position. I assume prior to engaging in the adoption you sought some sort of legal advice and that after the adoption you applied for daughter's citizenship.
Should we seek to avoid true radical backlash against those from or born abroad, we shouldn't ask that the law be so flexed to bend to those who should have known and likely had the means to seek legal counsel before getting themselves into this mess.
8
Another reason why Republicans and Trump must be voted out of office. Next month is the 50th anniversary of Stonewall. I wouldn’t have expected that we would need a Stonewall II, but perhaps we do. As an LGBTQ American, I support my community and demand equal rights. We are not asking. There is no turning back no matter that the Republicans are attempting to turn back time. That’s a big N-O, no.
149
@Pietro Allar The article quite explicitly states that this policy predates Trump. I'm sure he and his aren't exactly chomping at the bit to undo it, but this one can't be laid completely at his feet.
18
@Pietro Allar I agree with NYCLady. I ran into this unfortunate interpretation of the law back in 2012 after giving birth in Greece. Ironically, I contacted the NYTimes then hoping to gain traction on getting discussion going about the issue - but not enough interest it would seem.
5
@Brionna, I thought babies born to American citizens were American no matter where they were born. Ted Cruz, John McCain.
the times had an article a few months back about birth tourism - pregnant foreign women flying to the US to have their children
i find it amazing that this is allowed -
so the child of these two men isn't a citizen
but the child of a non-us citizen born a day after landing at jfk is?
235
@j Neither one should be.
We're getting jets full of wealthy Russian and Chinese women flying to the U.S. to get their anchor baby in place..hoping that family status will also allow the whole extended family to follow their 3 month old baby (when born) to the U.S.
We have loopholes in our immigration system that you could drive a Mack truck through.
Too bad Nancy Pelosi and the D's don't want to fix them.
Apparently there is competitive advantage in boosting the total population of CA before the 2020 Census. Looks like they're trying to steal another 10 House seats and Electoral votes from OH, MI, PA, MO, IL, MN, and WI.
7
@Erica Smythe Why weren't these loopholes fixed when the Republicans had the Senate, House and Presidency? Or do you just need a scapegoat?
24
@j
Ooooh, good catch.
If I were you I'd go sit in the ante-room of Mitch McConnell's capacious office and insist that forty years of refusing even to debate immigration policy is probably enough.
If The Manufactured Crisis at the Southern Border can't get him to move his woebegone party, maybe you can.
7
Come to Canada to live and escape the increasing madness of the social decline of the American empire.
320
If only it were so easy...As I understand it, as a retiree, I can only visit for up to 6 months with a visa.
31
@Norman Dupuis
If I had college-age children this is exactly what I would advise, and if I were 30 years younger, this is exactly what I would do. U.S. citizens in their early 20s can become established in Canada and build a life there. Young parents, with marketable skills, can move with their children, and raise them in a more humane, sane culture. I'm too old to emigrate, but for those who are not, it seems crazy not to make this choice. The U.S. is of course in decline; your chances of getting shot, going bankrupt due to medical bills, becoming an addict, getting a 'sporadic' cancer (which is most of them) due to to over-work and stress, and generally, leading a life of melancholia, are pretty high here.
34
@Norman Dupuis If only! I wish Canada would raise the age at which an American could move permanently there. Our country is hellacious right now and I'm afraid it will take years to fix the mess the current president has created.
9
An illegitimate law worth ignoring.
10
How evil and inhumane our nation has become! History is going to judge us very badly when we look back on this horrid period.
89
Rather bizarre old law here, I wonder what happens in the case of adoption? Like, if two American parents of any gender adopt a baby from, say, Costa Rica, shouldn't that baby be granted American citizenship? If people have a child by any means, and they're American, shouldn't their baby get citizenship even if their spouse doesn't have it?
I would hope that at least people who fall afoul of this old law can get their child citizenship fairly directly, even if it's through a tedious application process. But it's good to spread the word about this, because the obvious lesson is, if you're American and having a child, you'd better have it in America to save yourself a lot of hassle. If you're having a child through a surrogate mother, make sure to get her to America to have the actual birth, and so on.
10
Adoption is conducted under a different body of law than surrogacy— adoption falls under family law and surrogacy is governed by contract law. That’s why it’s different. In surrogacy money changes hands and the mother is not recognized at all as a parent, unlike in adoption where women have rights to change their minds, etc. Adoption is about transferring parental rights for a child already created. Surrogacy is about creating a child and establishing a contract prior - almost always for money. @Dan Stackhouse
2
I just fear that the world, and especially this country, is becoming a cruel place. I hope that common sense can prevail, but mine own tells me that this is generally not the case anymore.
48
On the other hand, when wasn't the world a cruel place? Every century further back you go, it was a lot more vicious and merciless than it is now.
9
@Trapper
You don't know what cruel looks like. Head to the Middle East or Africa or China or Russia or India or Latin America and then come talk to us about cruelty. Better yet, read a little bit of history. It's safer than those other places.
5
@Trapper, I hope that common sense can prevail, never mind the picture.
Actually, it's not that shocking.
5
The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution makes any person born to an American citizen a US citizen no matter where they were born. Although the sperm donor father was British born, he is naturalized American citizen so his baby is an American citizen. The State Department's decades old policy is in direct conflict with the US Constitution so is invalid.
31
The Immigration and Nationality Act places limits on who can transmit citizenship. It comes down to “ties” in the US. A child born abroad to married parents where only one parent is an American citizenship does not automatically become a US citizen. That parent needs to demonstrate that he/she lived in the US for a total of five years, two after the age of 14.
My interpretation of the law is that it is meant to prevent people from transmitting citizenship in perpetuity when not having any ties to the US. My great-great-grandparents came from Germany but that does not make me a German citizen.
The INA needs to be changed to reflect the modern reality of assisted reproduction and same-sex marriage. Call your Congressperson and Senators.
14
sorry but you are wrong. citizenship cannot be transmitted if the citizen parent hasn't spent 5 years in the US. My US citizen son was born in Hong kong. I had to show generic linkage via a dna test and I had to show I had lived in US for more than five years: did so and he got his passport. BUT he cannot transmit US citizenship unless he spends five years in US. any competent immigration lawyer would have pointed out these same issues to this couple, which exist regardless of sexual orientation.
6
@Jeff
yeah -- all clear until case law gets in the way... and a judge.
2
For the male couple with a UK born surrogate it seems like a storm in a tea cup. If they want to live in the US then simply apply for a K4 visa for the child (same level of bureaucracy as acquiring citizenship overseas), if they want to live in the UK do nothing. None of this actually affects their day to day living..
9
@Brian
"None of this actually affects their day to day living."
...until ICE raids their home and takes the baby.
2
Brian, why she should have to apply for a visa and be treated as a visiting immigrant — rather than a U.S. citizen by birth?!
I mean, if an American couple can adopt a child from overseas and that child is considered an American citizen, without even having to go through naturalization process, then why should there be a different policy for a surrogate situation?!
See https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/Intercountry-Adoption/Adoption-Process/how-to-adopt/us-citizenship-for-your-child.html
3
@Brian
Oh sure—having your family status denied does NOTHING to your state of being at all.
4
I think the rule is very clear regarding birthright citizenship, also known as Jus Soli. In the USA, our citizenship is based on where we were born regardless of the nationality of our parents.
So, unfortunately, she is not American.
2
@Lucky Guy
The article and history both disagree with your assessment. Children born to US soldiers overseas are automatically granted citizenship regardless of country born in. Such was the case of John McCain, who was born in Panama, yet was allowed to run for President. If he was naturalized, he couldn't have.
The US follows Birthright citizenship, not Jus Soli.
The article, however, points out that one biological parent is a naturalized US citizen that apparently hasn't been in the country long enough to count. An absurd distinction if I've heard one. This is the legal loophole that hit them.
19
Actually no, if two Americans have a child born in another country, that child is American. Like for example, John McCain, or Mitt Romney. The loophole here that is being used to withhold citizenship is the biological connection.
8
Strictly speaking US immigration rules are a mix of jus sanguinis and jus soli. The cases discussed here relate to children born outside of the US, therefore jus soli is not relevant but with two US citizen parents one expects jus sanguinis to apply instead.
McCain’s case is a bit different since the Panama Canal Zone was at the time a US controlled territory, it is could argued that he was born on US soil. “Natural bien citizen” isn’t clearly define in the constitution but could include someone born abroad from two US citizen parents who therefore acquired citizenship at birth.
3
This is just mean spirited.
Why?
Because "they" (our government) can.
Horrific.
93
Unfortunately, this couple made assumptions without consulting an attorney knowledgeable in laws regarding citizenship. He or she probably would have advised him to be sure to bring the surrogate to the US prior to birth. since the law is not solid on these types of births. An added expense to be sure but they will incur expenses regardless at this point. The answer may be to adopt their own child if necessary and then file for citizenship. That's what my wife and I and many many others did when adopting their babies from overseas, in our case, Korea.
110
@Rob D The law is solid. The 14th Amendment says that the child of an American citizen is an American citizen no matter where born. The British born American citizen is the biological father.
29
@Jeff, Agreed, perhaps I should have said policy instead of law. Doing some homework may have shown them that problems could arise. They will ultimately win but it will cost them time and money
7
@Jeff
The 14th Amendment is not the only applicable law here, and is not as restrictive as you suggest. There is a voluminous Immigration and Nationality Act.
8
Technically there isn't a "husband or wife" in same sex marriages. The article doesn't make clear whether or not the sperm is from a donor or from one of the couple. If the child isn't biologically related to either person then you can adopt. I would encourage everyone, specifically the couple, to recognize that finding something "shocking" means zip. Many still find it shocking that same sex marriage exists but you are still legally married.
15
@Dixon Duval Read it again. Early on, the article stated that the sperm came from the British born father.
10
The article did make it clear that the child is biologically related to one of the parents, the British born father who is an American citizen.
10
@Dixon Duval
The article clearly states, in the third paragraph, that the sperm comes from Jonathan Mize, the British-born father.
8
"The biological son of the American received citizenship, but his brother, the biological son of the Israeli, did not. In February, a federal judge sided with the couple, calling the State Department’s interpretation of the immigration law “strained.” The department is appealing."
The State Dept, is using my tax dollars to appeal this decision?! To keep twin brothers separated? Have they lost their minds? Do they have nothing better to do, like, say, prevent war with Iran?
639
If the state department lost in court, why would they appeal? What is the point of trying to split up a family? Very mean spirited!
104
@Greg Hanson it is quite possible that the State Department also wants this clarified once and for all, so is appealing to create a solid ruling. This problem is created by our lawmakers being too busy bickering over politics to do their jobs. Shame on them.
But yeah, I also am appalled that my tax dollars are being frittered away on this.
23
@DB There is very little evidence of any sound reasoning. And the more you follow the news, the worse it seems to get.
11
The dilemma of this couple and the other couple mentioned (one American, one Israeli) is beyond macabre. It combines the worst features of our current administration's xenophobia and homophobia. They won't own the latter (the former is self-evident), but it has the odor of catering to the religious right.
275
@Wiltontraveler. The article is misleading to the extent it implies this is some new policy. The laws have nothing to do with homosexuality and predate legalised gay marriage by decades. They have to do with ensuring that the American genetic parent has enough ties to the US to transmit citizenship. The error was having Mr. Gregg provide the sperm rather than Mr. Mize, or in having the baby born in the UK rather than the US. The ART rules are a separate issue and also designed to ensure that in cases where citizenship is purported to be transmitted at birth, at least one person providing the genetic material is qualified to transmit citizenship. For the rest, there is adoption. Think of it this way: if I marry a foreigner abroad, should his child (my new step-child) automatically become an American or should we need to fill out paperwork to make that happen? It's an imperfect analogy but illustrates the distinction.
25
@Frequent Commenter Yeah, well I understand adopting. I was the biological child of a broken home, my father French Canadian, his legally wedded wife American. I was adopted by a truly fine straight white couple. But I don't think anybody ever raised this issue about me. And before you say this has nothing to do with these couples' same-sex marriage, what are the instances of straight couples undergoing this horror? If one's spouse has a child, isn't that enough? Homosexual spouses don't need to "adopt" each other's children if they're married at the original birth. Or are we in the bizarre realm, here, of eugenics?
8
@Wiltontraveler
Did you not read this decision is based on a 1952 law...when DJT was in 1st grade??? Truman was President. A Democrat.
Same sex couples and heterosexual couples who use IVF or a surrogate deserve to have this whole issue revisited. Yesterday!!! Using a sperm creates a biological connection. Simple logic.
4
This article angers me, but I don't really understand what being "married" has to do with it. If they are saying that the biological parent has to have lived in the U.S. for 5 years, what does that have to do with marriage? Am I missing something?
44
@Michael M.
The problem is this scenario (let's talk a same sex couple, 2 women)
1)Person A is a US citizen
2)Person B is not a US citizen (A and B are married, but B has not become a citizen yet).
A and B go to canada, and B is impregnated through IVf with donor sperm, presumably Canadian. Under US law, since A and B are married, that child is legally both their children, both A and B are responsible for it, if B died, A would have automatic custody, unlike the days before same sex marriage (a straight couple who have kids with a donor egg or sperm are legally the parents).
Problem: Though A and B are both the parent of the child, the Child is not considered a citizen, because A , the US citizen, is not biologically related to the child. Yet if A is legally responsible for the child, why isn't the child covered by A's citizen ship? More importantly, I would bet a lot of money that if A and B were opposite sex, if B was female and had the baby with donated sperm, the kid would be a citizen, de facto this is done to discriminate against same sex couples.
12
The INA specified different citizenship transmission requirements based on the parent’s or parents’ marital status. Thus an unwed American mother need have only lived in the US for one day in order to transmit citizenship to her child, whereas married parents need to demonstrate stronger ties.
4
@Michael M. Yes, and it's not your fault: the article conflates two separate issues. Marriage is not the real issue here. The issue is that for an American who was born and grew up abroad, should that person who is American in name but not necessarily in culture be able to transmit US citizenship? The law says no, not unless they have spent some time living in the US. For example, my two kids (US/Australian dual citizens) were born in Australia and have lived in Australia their whole lives. If they never come live in the US for at least a few years, should they really be able to pass US citizenship on to their future children? Should their third-generation Aussie kids?
The only relevance of marital status is that a baby born in wedlock is assumed to hold the genetic material of both parents, whereas where IVF-type technology is used the parents need to certify (and may need to provide proof) of what genetic material is used, since in cases of donor eggs/sperm the genetic material might not come from a US citizen. Where the baby is born out of wedlock, the issue is that it is clear a baby born of a US mother has US genetic material, but a US citizen father needs to acknowledge paternity. All the rules make sense if you think about them, except that perhaps we should not assume that babies born in wedlock are legitimate if we acknowledge human nature that some people cheat.
9
This is wrong. Full stop. The guidelines have to adapt so they are in step with reality.
202
This guy is a lawyer and he is surprised by this?! He can’t be serious. With everything going in this country this is not surprising and it should especially not be surprising to this gentleman. I do not agree with it, but for him to say he was surprised shows how personal wants and beliefs can distort our view of the world (or this country).
57
@Mark H He’s not surprised in the least. You don’t honestly think this was accidental? Why simply use the other man’s sperm or a surrogate in the US when it wouldn’t generate as much sanctimonious outrage??
6
Mark,
A lot of assumptions for a keyboard warrior.
1
This is an incredibly shameful way to interpret the law - and highly suspicious as well, considering it wasn't interpreted this way under the previous administration.
102
@Shane. It has always been interpreted like this. I had my kids overseas during the Obama administration and there where still the same rules (1) that when a baby is born through Assisted Reproductive Technology, you must establish the US citizenship of the US citizen contributor(s) of genetic material in order to transmit citizenship by birth rather than requiring naturalisation; and (2) that for a US citizen born abroad to transmit US citizenship automatically at birth, that person must have sufficient ties to the US (ie, having spent adequate time living on US soil). Straight couples who use ART can have issues under the same rules, in particular where donor eggs and/or sperm are used. It just so happens that those rules also catch gay couples, for obvious reasons. But the real issue here is that the couple picked the wrong parent to supply the sperm. if Mr. Mize had supplied it, their daughter would have been a US citizen automatically. The bigger issue in this age where we expats are financial pariahs due to draconian financial rules applying to US citizens abroad is why any American expat in their right mind would WANT to automatically pass on citizenship to their kids. My poor kids got it automatically and will likely have to renounce when they turn 18 in order to be able to work and invest in their country of birth.
13
Can the child get permanent residency/green card and citizenship later, or will it be deported?
13
@John Mardinly K4 visa.
2
We have a throwback government.
Any day now the sun will resume going around the earth.
121
Have we lost every shred of common sense?
589
@Marie
Some of us certainly have.
30
@Marie
Both Sense and Decency have left the building.
72
@Todd -- They left on Jan. 20, 2017; if the US electorate has any sense, they will return on Jan. 20, 2021.
14