One ruled a US citizen, the other not: gay couple's twins face unusual battle

[bcking 3,157]

13 hours ago, Boiler said:

How would this have differed if they had not been gay? If say the Husband had a surrogate baby in Canada and was the Israeli?

If the Husband was an Israeli and his wife was a US citizen, the baby born in Canada would be eligible to be a citizen since the wife/mom is a US citizen.

 

Here the baby was born in Canada, and one of his father's is a US citizen. But because that father isn't his "DNA determined father", it isn't sufficient. We can assume the surrogate was a Canadian citizen if they were born in Canada.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

If the Husband was an Israeli and his wife was a US citizen, the baby born in Canada would be eligible to be a citizen since the wife/mom is a US citizen.

 

Here the baby was born in Canada, and one of his father's is a US citizen. But because that father isn't his "DNA determined father", it isn't sufficient. We can assume the surrogate was a Canadian citizen if they were born in Canada.

wasnt Ted Cruise kinda in that same boat. I forget the details 

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

wasnt Ted Cruise kinda in that same boat. I forget the details 

Ya I think he was born in Canada.

 

I realize now Boiler included the surrogacy issue with the straight couple, so yes then it would be more complicated. 

 

First off - Gestational surrogate or Traditional surrogate? Meaning is the woman who carried the baby the biologic mother or is she just a "vessel" for the pregnancy. If the US citizen  mom is the genetic mom, then a DNA test would confirm that and they would be good to go.

 

If the surrogate was the biological mom, it would partly depend on what Canada does with birth certificates. Judging by this case it sounds like they are fairly lenient when it comes to who is placed on the birth certificate (Since they put both men and no mother, presumably). If that is the case, we can probably assume they would put the man's wife (who isn't the bio mom) on the birth certificate. If yo submitted that BC there would be nothing on it to suggest that the "mom" isn't actually biologically related. In that situation since it is a "traditional coupling", I doubt immigration would look at the names and ask for DNA testing to confirm that she is really the mom. They would likely just not disclose it, and it would never come up. Everyone would just assume that the mom is the mom.

 

In the USA - laws regarding surrogacy varies by state. In some you have to go through "adoption" proceedings afterwards (We are talking about traditional surrogacy here). In some states if there was a pre-approved plan prior it can make it quicker, though typically there is some protection for the bio mom to change her mind immediately after birth.

 

In many cases once you go through the paperwork though the original birth certificate (which would have contained the surrogates name in some scenarios) would be expunged from the record, and there would be a new updated birth certificate. To my knowledge at that point there is no record of who the surrogate mother was (unless you keep the record yourself). In those situations you could make a similar argument NB made earlier in the thread about whether or not the biological parents should always be identified. I think as long as the parents themselves keep the record (even if just for health screening purposes), I don't see why the state has to. While it would be a potentially awkward conversation, it would make sense from a healthcare maintenance standpoint to contact the bio parent when the child is in their 20-30's to ask about family history, in case certain medical screening protocols are indicated (What if mother is diagnosed with colon cancer in her 30's? Or is discovered to have the BRCA mutation for breast cancer? Would be important to know for the child)

Edited January 25, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,512]

26 minutes ago, bcking said:

Ya I think he was born in Canada.

 

I realize now Boiler included the surrogacy issue with the straight couple, so yes then it would be more complicated. 

 

First off - Gestational surrogate or Traditional surrogate? Meaning is the woman who carried the baby the biologic mother or is she just a "vessel" for the pregnancy. If the US citizen  mom is the genetic mom, then a DNA test would confirm that and they would be good to go.

 

If the surrogate was the biological mom, it would partly depend on what Canada does with birth certificates. Judging by this case it sounds like they are fairly lenient when it comes to who is placed on the birth certificate (Since they put both men and no mother, presumably). If that is the case, we can probably assume they would put the man's wife (who isn't the bio mom) on the birth certificate. If yo submitted that BC there would be nothing on it to suggest that the "mom" isn't actually biologically related. In that situation since it is a "traditional coupling", I doubt immigration would look at the names and ask for DNA testing to confirm that she is really the mom. They would likely just not disclose it, and it would never come up. Everyone would just assume that the mom is the mom.

 

In the USA - laws regarding surrogacy varies by state. In some you have to go through "adoption" proceedings afterwards (We are talking about traditional surrogacy here). In some states if there was a pre-approved plan prior it can make it quicker, though typically there is some protection for the bio mom to change her mind immediately after birth.

 

In many cases once you go through the paperwork though the original birth certificate (which would have contained the surrogates name in some scenarios) would be expunged from the record, and there would be a new updated birth certificate. To my knowledge at that point there is no record of who the surrogate mother was (unless you keep the record yourself). In those situations you could make a similar argument NB made earlier in the thread about whether or not the biological parents should always be identified. I think as long as the parents themselves keep the record (even if just for health screening purposes), I don't see why the state has to. While it would be a potentially awkward conversation, it would make sense from a healthcare maintenance standpoint to contact the bio parent when the child is in their 20-30's to ask about family history, in case certain medical screening protocols are indicated (What if mother is diagnosed with colon cancer in her 30's? Or is discovered to have the BRCA mutation for breast cancer? Would be important to know for the child)

Just curious, can't both of these boys claim Canadian citizenship?  Isn't that considered better?

[-Trinity- 513]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Just curious, can't both of these boys claim Canadian citizenship?  Isn't that considered better?

The one who isn't US citizen is on a tourist visa and considered undocumented as soon as his visa expires.
 

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Just curious, can't both of these boys claim Canadian citizenship?  Isn't that considered better?

I don't know much about Canadian citizenship, but probably?

 

A "better" citizenship is entirely dependent on each personal situation. For the family in the article it seems pretty clear that Canadian citizenship isn't better. They intended to live in the USA, 3 (out of 4) of them have the legal right to live in the USA, and the only one that doesn't is a toddler.

 

While I guess I can see how a chain of events could lead to where they are now...I do find it sad that no one during the many step process stopped and actually thought like a human being and realized that the 2 year old has 1 father who is a US citizen, 1 who has a green card, and a sibling who will be granted citizenship. Shouldn't they just let the 2 year old slide? I doubt the 2 year old is bringing drugs, crime, or rapists. (I'm guessing on the age here...there was a picture in the article). 

[-Trinity- 513]

24 minutes ago, bcking said:

I don't know much about Canadian citizenship, but probably?

 

A "better" citizenship is entirely dependent on each personal situation. For the family in the article it seems pretty clear that Canadian citizenship isn't better. They intended to live in the USA, 3 (out of 4) of them have the legal right to live in the USA, and the only one that doesn't is a toddler.

 

While I guess I can see how a chain of events could lead to where they are now...I do find it sad that no one during the many step process stopped and actually thought like a human being and realized that the 2 year old has 1 father who is a US citizen, 1 who has a green card, and a sibling who will be granted citizenship. Shouldn't they just let the 2 year old slide? I doubt the 2 year old is bringing drugs, crime, or rapists. (I'm guessing on the age here...there was a picture in the article). 

They probably don't want to create a precedent. And individuals don't like to take the responsibility or get the blame. So no immigration officer will make that decision by themselves.

 

But agree with you,it's sad and unnecessary. The couple probably has to go through many legal hoops to get it done.

Edited January 25, 2018 by -Trinity-

[Dashinka 24,512]

31 minutes ago, -Trinity- said:

The one who isn't US citizen is on a tourist visa and considered undocumented as soon as his visa expires.
 

I believe Canada does follow Jus Soli.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

wasnt Ted Cruise kinda in that same boat. I forget the details 

spawn of satan but born in Canada, does not really apply in this case

[bcking 3,157]

58 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

spawn of satan but born in Canada, does not really apply in this case

I wonder if Jus Soli applies if you are born in the depths of the earth, but underneath Canada?

[dentsflogged 352]

9 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

 

Untrue. John McCain was born overseas to American parents and was qualified to be  president.

 

 to be "a Natural Born Citizen" refers to your parents as well as where you were born.

Ah, cool. I never knew.  I heard the "natural born citizen" a few times and remembered being told that it meant being born on US soil.  Good to know, though  

[little immigrant 801]

On 1/24/2018 at 5:47 PM, -Trinity- said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/23/gay-couple-twin-sons-citizenship-ruling-lgbt-discrimination

 

Interesting case.

They made the right choice.