Thousands of adoptees thought they were US citizens but learned they are not

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/thousands-of-adoptees-thought-they-were-us-citizens-but-learned-they-are-not/2016/09/02/7924014c-6bc1-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_adoptees-8pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

by lisper • 10 years ago

96 106 10 years ago

washingtonpost.com

ap3• 10 years ago

No reason not to pass the adoption citizenship act.

nickpsecurity• 10 years ago

If they become citizens, they can vote. They might be likely as a whole to vote for or against things that bother certain groups in Congress. That by itself will be a reason for those parties to prevent them from being citizens. We see the same thing with the islanders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesHr99ezWE

toomanybeersies• 10 years ago

How many people would become citizens under this law though? I doubt it would be a significant amount in terms of voting in or out certain politicians.

stcredzero• 10 years ago

That's simply putting political gamesmanship over humanity, in the most inhumane way imaginable!

karma_vaccum123• 10 years ago

I want to help this guy but I have to ask....how did the parents just "forget" to get his citizenship complete????

taspeotis• 10 years ago

“There wasn’t a lot of education to adoptive parents in the earlier time about naturalizing their children or even what papers to keep, said Kessel, whose organization is helping push for bills in the House and Senate.

DanBC• 10 years ago

Immigration is complex enough that there are lawyers who specialise in immigration law. Most people can't afford immigration lawyers.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11972135

Flimm• 10 years ago

Some of these people had US passports. US passports! If I had a US passport it would not cross my mind that I was not a US citizen and that I needed to do even more paperwork.

nylsaar• 10 years ago

Justin Ki Hong just needs run for president. Problem solved.

erkose2• 10 years ago

This is just wrong. He entered the country legally. The Adoption Citizenship Act seems like the right way to handle this.

rdtsc4• 10 years ago

It isn't, not without an amendment it seems. These people were too old to qualify.

The reason the law was that way is to prevent loopholes like someone adopting a 30 year old person and then using this law to naturalize them.

erkose2• 10 years ago

If he was entitled to citizenship at the time of his adoption, and his adoptive parents failed to file the paperwork, then he should be entitled to citizenship regardless of his age. There are certainly many ways to abuse the system, but I prefer to err on the side of good faith.

rdtsc4• 10 years ago

I thought an executive decision is all it's needed but apparently not.

Interestingly, there is a special law to expedite naturalization for those who "made an extraordinary contribution to the national security of the United States or to the conduct of United States intelligence activities". But even there it's a 5 person per year maximum.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/html/USCODE...

Congress can change the laws obviously, wonder what the turnaround there could be.

khuey• 10 years ago

That provision is presumably for "this guy told us where to find Bin Laden/Edward Snowden/Satoshi Nakamoto" level activities.

rdtsc4• 10 years ago

I was wondering why they need a quick citizenship and why a green card wouldn't be sufficient. Guessing could be in case of defectors maybe their original country would revoke their citizenship or at least their passport. So they might be left for years in kind of a limbo.

rcthompson• 10 years ago

That sounds like a law written decades ago as a lure for high-value defectors from the USSR during the Cold War.

jacquesm3• 10 years ago

More likely: those brought over from Nazi Germany to help with rocketry.

drinchev4• 10 years ago

I know a girl that had to leave the U.S. >24< years after her parents brought her there ( she was a baby ).

The story ( as far as I can remember ) is that a family of Germans moved to the U.S. with their 1 year old child. 24 years later the child graduated university and ... needs to apply for a green card or permanent VISA.

US government refused, so she had to come back to Germany.

I've never understood why U.S. is so protective in terms of citizenship. In most of the EU countries you get naturalized ( receive citizenship ) if you spend certain amount of time in the country and pass a test ( Germany I think it's 7 yrs ).

nickff2• 10 years ago

The USA does have similar rules, but there are some restrictions based on what you can prove, and your status upon entry.

8611m• 10 years ago

What are these rules that you refer to? I know a lot of people who could benefit from such rules having come to the United States legally and spending 10 years and has to leave because their visas were expiring.

justinlardinois2• 10 years ago

In the US you can begin the naturalization process after five years of permanent residency.

A green card is what establishes permanent residency. (I don't think we have permanent visas, but I could be wrong.)

I can only speculate how your friend was allowed to live in this country that long without ever obtaining permanent residency, but regardless, it's an example of the system failing, and that's a really terrible thing to happen to someone.

drinchev4• 10 years ago

Well as far as I can remember the story, their parents were there with a working VISA ( extended through time ) and she got at one point ( I think at 18? ) a study VISA until it all expired after university.

intended• 10 years ago

Its more than that - the thing is that America was the place where things "just worked". Thats why lots of people in the 80s immigrated.

This stuff is common sense for most agencies to deal with. Lived over 24 years here, born a baby - lets solve this.

Its tragic to be honest. More than anything else, seeing that crumble is disheartening. More than wars, more than Trump.

PhasmaFelis6• 10 years ago

I've never understood why U.S. is so protective in terms of citizenship.

We've got a lot of racist assholes, basically. Particularly ironic for a country that was founded on immigration. These laws, and their heavy-handed enforcement, are mainly targeted at keeping out Mexicans. European and Asian immigrants are collateral damage, essentially.

Europe, unfortunately, is starting to go the same way. I think it was Switzerland that denied citizenship to a couple of teenage Muslim girls because they didn't want to swim with boys in mandatory co-ed swim class. They've also banned minarets on mosques, apparently--I have no clue how they pretend to justify that. Xenophobia makes people do ridiculous things.

bruceb2• 10 years ago

Heavy handed enforcement? If we had that we would not have 12m people here illegally.

Wanting to keep national character is respecting culture. Switzerland is right to defend equality

prance• 10 years ago

Why is this down voted? It is the truth.

drinchev4• 10 years ago

The two stories doesn't match.

It was a decision of the girls ( or their father ) [1] not to be naturalized. They could've just did the swim with the boys and they would've got their citizenship.

On the other hand my friend had NO CHOICE in her 24 year stay in the U.S. to get a citizenship ( although she followed all the rules / laws of the country ).

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/switzerland-c...

jkot• 10 years ago

Europe was like that for a long time. France and Germany were vey scared when eastern countries joined EU.

shambala2• 10 years ago

I completely support what Switzerland did. If you don't want to be part of the culture you are joining, they don't have to let you in. Note that they are not expelling the girls-they are denying them citizenship. Citizenship for Switzerland means shared values.

Ping me when Saudi Arabia allows Jews to become citizens.

superuser2• 10 years ago

I've never understood why U.S. is so protective in terms of citizenship.

The American electorate believes unemployment is caused by an improper ratio of people to jobs, and it can be solved both by increasing the number of jobs and decreasing the number of people.

In this theory, your friend's expulsion was a victory for the American who took over her job, and for the unemployed person who entered the labor market (if not directly, then via a domino effect).

We are comparatively loose with immigration statuses that don't permit work. Tourist, student, etc. visas are relatively trivial to obtain. We have programs that allow work which doesn't compete with Americans, such as international performing arts groups on tour. We even have programs to fill jobs that Americans aren't available to fill (H1B for highly skilled labor, seasonal farm workers, etc).

The moat is built around statuses that permit competition with Americans for jobs in general. It remains this way because Americans do not generally consider or believe Econ 101 ideas like that trade necessarily benefits both sides of the exchange (or they would not make it), more workers also means more consumers, cheaper labor => cheaper goods and services => higher standard of living, etc.

ZoF2• 10 years ago

Yes, that stupid American electorate who can't understand basic economics.

I really wish everyone could be as enlightened as yourself.

Houshalter2• 10 years ago

It remains this way because Americans do not generally consider or believe Econ 101 ideas

It's not at all clear this violates "Econ 101". Supply and demand set prices, and wages are basically the price for labor. Increasing the supply of labor should necessarily decrease wages, and vice versa.

Imagine the extreme, worst case scenario. If the US opened it's borders completely, and imported every poor worker in the entire world into its borders. Do you really believe that average American worker would be better off? That they could compete with that, and be able to demand a decent wage?

trade necessarily benefits both sides of the exchange

True, but extremely misleading. E.g. f you move factories overseas for cheaper labor, the local workers lose out, even though other classes may gain. The benefits of trade are not distributed among the entire population.

cheaper labor => cheaper goods and services

Sure, but if everyone is making proportionally less money, they can't afford the cheaper services, and on net they are poorer.

zubat• 10 years ago

The fears of globalization are various and not as simple as a GDP or employment rate. It promotes an uprooting and destabilization of people's lives as everything becomes more competitive. There is no guarantee that you stay near home, work in a familiar culture, build lasting ties in your career. These things aren't strictly a matter of globalization, and their value is not easily measured against the known benefits of bigger markets. But the status quo is to ram free trade down the precariat's throat without allowing protest or negotiation, with a paternalistic "we'll all be better off if you take it on the chin."

Analogies to the enclosure movement come to mind.

Sir_Substance• 10 years ago

We are comparatively loose with immigration statuses that don't permit work. Tourist, student, etc. visas are relatively trivial to obtain.

That's a weird statement, I feel like you lack wider context. As an Australian, pretty much the only place in the western world where I need a visa /at all/ to be a tourist is the USA. In something like 50% of the the world, I can just show up at the border whenevs and they'll let me in on the promise that I'm going to leave in a few weeks.

Your standards are actually pretty anal compared to almost everywhere else. China and Russia are really the only comparable places.

klipt2• 10 years ago

I've never understood why U.S. is so protective in terms of citizenship.

In some ways it isn't: merely being born here grants citizenship. That's no longer the case in any EU country: Ireland repealed birthright citizenship years ago.

It means that simply flying to the US on a tourist visa before your baby is born will grant it citizenship. But living in the US on a work visa for 18 years after your baby is born? That doesn't grant anything.

yodsanklai• 10 years ago

I've never understood why U.S. is so protective in terms of citizenship. In most of the EU countries you get naturalized ( receive citizenship ) if you spend certain amount of time in the country and pass a test ( Germany I think it's 7 yrs ).

I think it's more complicated than that. My gf has lived more than 10 years in France now and she has to renew her visa every year, they never granted her the 10 years visa, let alone citizenship (she was discouraged to apply for it...).

On the other hand, I have a bunch of friends that obtained their US nationality quite easily. They started as illegal immigrants, got married, which gave them a green card and after a few years they obtained their citizenship.

These are just anecdotes, just to say that it's not so clear that it's harder to get US citizenship.

shambala2• 10 years ago

Because she is an illegal immigrant. Case closed.

jzwinck• 10 years ago

The more bizarre part is how the various federal agencies do not coordinate. For example, the "fear they will be unable to collect Social Security benefits they have paid into." This means these people are paying taxes to the IRS who collects SS money from them yet they are "not eligible" to work in the US. This is "impossible" but the tax man doesn't ask questions when people send him money.

I think if someone has paid, say, 20% of their total lifetime earnings, with a minimum of $50K over ten years, in taxes to the US government, and they have not committed any crime, they should be given citizenship. This gives the USG ten years to find anyone they'd rather not have in the country, and let them leave before they contribute more than their fair share to a country that rejects them.

lifeisstillgood2• 10 years ago

I like the idea, but it firstly makes "purchasing citizenship" a thing (as if it is not already) and it has an underlying principle that is more useful - if you spend ten years openly in a country and are not a criminal, then you get to stay, which is a much better principle.

puranjay• 10 years ago

The problem with that is that it penalizes legal residents waiting for their citizenship

My brother has been in the US for nearly 20 years. Started out as a grad student, then as a H1-B. Took him more than 10 years just to get a green card, then 5 years more to be eligible for citizenship.

All this while, he must have paid several hundred thousand dollars in taxes (6+ figure income over 15 years)

Why should another immigrant get the same benefits as him faster than he could by paying even less in taxes?

pkaler• 10 years ago

Why should another immigrant get the same benefits as him faster than he could by paying even less in taxes?

Because it's not a zero-sum game.

One person's right to citizenship does not erode another person's right to citizenship.

ics• 10 years ago

"...with a minimum of $50K over ten years, in taxes to the US government, and they have not committed any crime, they should be given citizenship..."

In this hypothetical scenario would your brother not have paid $50k and been granted citizenship much sooner than the other?

linkregister2• 10 years ago

penalizes legal residents waiting for their citizenship

How does another person receiving a benefit penalize your brother?

By the same logic, we should all insist on vicious assaults on new military recruits, because that's how it was done years ago.

As a society we should seek to improve the way we treat people, maximizing practical utility (tax-paying illegal immigrants are benefiting society) and seeking fairness. Chasing fairness as a primary goal is a fruitless endeavor.

I think it's awful for both your brother and society that he was required to wait so long to get his citizenship. Should we repeat the same mistakes out of a misguided attempt at fairness?

kevin_thibedeau• 10 years ago

The most curious instance I've heard of this was a man who came in as a young child and joined the Army (perfectly legal for non-citizens). While in the service he was an MP and then took a job as a police officer after finishing his service. The problem came that without citizenship he couldn't legally work as a LEO and all of his arrests were technically invalid. As an MP, though, he was working under the exclusive authority of the executive and no such conflict was present.

lisper12• 10 years ago

What was most shocking to me was that some of these kids managed to get U.S. passports without being citizens. How does that happen? I'm a first generation immigrant. My parents were naturalized when I was 10. AFAIK that means that I automatically acquired their naturalization. But I do not have a naturalization certificate of my own, and I don't have a copy of my parents certificate. I do hold a U.S. passport, but that is apparently not ironclad proof of citizenship. I'm frankly not sure what I would do if Trump gets elected and the brown shirts show up no my doorstep to haul my ass back to Germany because my passport is invalid.

Ironically, my situation is a little less tenuous because I am the biological child of naturalized immigrants rather than the adopted child of natural-born citizens. Like so many things about this story, that seems so wrong.

epicureanideal3• 10 years ago

Really? Trump and the brown shirts? Do we need to compare everybody to Hitler?

I read an article recently that says he's more of an American version of Italy's Berlusconi, and that seems more reasonable to me.

lifeisstillgood2• 10 years ago

I know the inexorable pull of Godwins Law, but this is a reasonable fear - Trump is standing at the top of a slippery slope, Berlusconi is further down the same slope, and the history of the 20th C shows where the slope goes.

Putting up warning signs, even contentious ones, at the top of the slope is reasonable.

(I read the same article and it is worth noting that a decade ago, every Italian I spoke to began conversations with "I am sorry about Berlusconi ...")

I am not advocating ignoring all discussion of issues raised by Trump or (trumping?!) all his issues with the Nazi card, but it is a part of his background and appeal and should be calmly assessed along with other issues of protectionism, labor rights and more.

panic2• 10 years ago

This Wednesday he literally promised to create a "deportation force". The comparison isn't too far off.

lisper12• 10 years ago

Do we need to compare everybody to Hitler? Trump's policies are eerily reminiscent of Hitler's. Seriously, go look up some transcripts of Hitler's speeches, especially the early ones, and substitute "Muslim" for "Jew" and compare the results to Trump's rhetoric. Better yet, show the results to some Trump supporters and ask them if they agree with the sentiments. But I don't really care what color their shirts are. What I care about is: by what process do we decide who gets thrown out and who gets to stay. Trump's policy is: throw out everyone who can't prove they're here legally. Well, if a passport isn't good enough proof (and it manifestly is not) then I'm not sure I can prove I'm here legally. Will it be "that bad?" Maybe, maybe not. But if history teaches us anything it is that the time to speak up is before the answer becomes apparent.

lisper12• 10 years ago

Do we need to compare everybody to Hitler?

Trump's policies are eerily reminiscent of Hitler's. Seriously, go look up some transcripts of Hitler's speeches, especially the early ones, and substitute "Muslim" for "Jew" and compare the results to Trump's rhetoric. Better yet, show the results to some Trump supporters and ask them if they agree with the sentiments.

But I don't really care what color their shirts are. What I care about is: by what process do we decide who gets thrown out and who gets to stay. Trump's policy is: throw out everyone who can't prove they're here legally. Well, if a passport isn't good enough proof (and it manifestly is not) then I'm not sure I can prove I'm here legally.

Will it be "that bad?" Maybe, maybe not. But if history teaches us anything it is that the time to speak up is before the answer becomes apparent.

[NOTE: I posted this comment in the wrong place in the comment tree, but someone posted a reply before I noticed so now I can't delete it. I re-posted it in the right place: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12418441]

zappo2938• 10 years ago

Both my grandparents survived the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. The only time my grandmother mentioned Nazi Germany to me was when Schindler's List was in theaters and she asked if I've seen it yet. Hitler didn't just start killing Jews and others. He slowly progressed to that. Of course, each step towards the final solution didn't seem like a large jump from the previous one. That is what I was told the power of the movie was, that it captured the slow progression. It started when Jews had to register all family members and had to move to ghettos in major cities or leave the country. Trump wants to start with step 1 with Muslims and Hispanic people. Trump is literally Hitler right now. What Trump wants is literally the first scene from Schindler's List. We are in 2016. We should be past this by now.

pash• 10 years ago

The legal history of the concept of citizenship in the United States is remarkably circuitous. The original text of the constitution referred only to citizens of individual states, never to citizens of the United States. Consequently, federal law and jurisprudence lacked any conception of national citizenship until the decision of Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1856, in which Chief Justice Roger B. Taney created the concept from whole cloth for the purpose of declaring Scott, a slave, not to be an American citizen and therefore not entitled to petition a federal court. The precedent held until the constitutional amendments of Reconstruction rectified it, explicitly introducing the concept of national citizenship into the constitution as a side effect.

There has remained a great deal of ambiguity about who is entitled to American citizenship by birth. Although the constitution as amended grants certain rights only to national citizens, the amendments that made national citizenship a part of the constitution failed to describe comprehensively who is entitled to citizenship. As a consequence, the question of who is and who is not a citizen, rather than being been decided on constitutional grounds, has been left to Congress. The odd result is that ordinary federal law, not the constitution itself, decides who is entitled to many fundamental constitutional rights and protections, including the basic rights to live in the United States and vote in national elections.

An interesting series of changes to the federal laws governing national citizenship occurred in the years after World War II. Because thousands of American soldiers and sailors were for the first time being permanently stationed abroad, there arose the question of whether their children born abroad had a right to citizenship. Federal law had previously granted citizenship to all children of American citizens, but during this period the laws were re-written to exclude the illegitimate children of military men with foreign women from citizenship in most cases. Today the law deciding the citizenship of children born abroad to a single American parent is a tangle of considerations of the marital status of the parents, when the child first visits American territory, how long he or she stays, etc.

I've sometimes wondered what the world might have been like in another several generations if those exclusions hadn't been made; by that time, due to the wonders of sexual reproduction, it's likely that tens or hundreds of millions of people outside the United States would be able to find an American in their ancestry, and therefore to claim American citizenship. Eventually, almost everyone would be an American. What would the world be like if everyone were entitled to vote in American elections (and obligated to pay American taxes)?

Thousands of adoptees thought they were US citizens but learned they are not

Related Stories