U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services policy alert

SUBJECT: Defining “Residence” in Statutory Provisions Related to Citizenship


https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...itizenship.pdf

For example, if the U.S. citizen, still having never resided in the United States, subsequently
marries another U.S. citizen who never resided in the United States, and they give birth to a child
outside the United States, the child will not acquire citizenship at birth under INA 301(c) because
neither U.S. citizen parent can show the requisite residence in the United States. However, if the
U.S. citizen parent had returned to the United States after his or her birth and established
residence before giving birth to the child outside the United States, then he or she may be able to
meet the residence requirement based on that period of residence and transmit U.S. citizenship
to his or her children.

The new guidance will not apply to children who acquire citizenship at birth or while residing in the United States, the USCIS notice states. That includes children born abroad to U.S. citizens who have resided in the United States at some point in the past five years.

So policy clarifications effecting a very small group of people that we up for discussion previously as to their actual status.

Sounds like nailing down policy is a good thing?

So policy clarifications effecting a very small group of people that we up for discussion previously as to their actual status.

Sounds like nailing down policy is a good thing? Originally Posted by eccielover

Not sure what you meant.

Do you question wether clarification is a good thing? It was a change, not necessarily a clarification. More like narrowing it down.

Not sure what you meant.

Do you question wether clarification is a good thing? It was a change, not necessarily a clarification. More like narrowing it down. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I'm not going to get into a semantics argument over it.

The memo does indeed have both pieces in it.

It was issued as guidance(clarification).

From it's highlights, it first clarifies, then does note the small change.

Again for me, it's typical government review and clarification to address what I'm guessing are ongoing questions and people trying to take advantage of the system, usually some group of lawyers that are stringing the "law" out to the loosest interpretation.

This works to close the interpretation factor.

Point taken. Although I don't think it's typical. It's xenophobic.

Open Borders

Citizenship and vote for anyone from anywhere who shows up
Free college, medical care, welfare, and housing for illegals forever
classic DPST valuing illegals and leeches over the working American citizen and taxpayer.
We will see how that Socialism flies nov 2020

Media's hysteria over clearing policy point ? very very small number effected