Child born of surrogate - father is USC but child denied citizenship

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, HRQX said:

Exactly. And looks like INA Section 320 will apply: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Child-Citizenship-2000-Sections-320-322-INA.html

Child would be ineligible like Arnold Schwarzenegger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Eligibility_challenges

I completely agree with you but the article I saw before was qouting that they wanted the child to be USC and wanted him "the ability to run for President if he so choose to do so". So that's why they were fighting for their child to be considered that. Which to me is just weird because it's like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. 

 

[EM_Vandaveer 2,408]

23 hours ago, carmel34 said:

Interesting case, but like anything related to US immigration law, you have to know the all details and follow the rules before you make big decisions, like getting married or having a baby.  Just like all of us, do research on all of the ins and outs of the very old and complex immigration laws and know the repercussions of your decisions before you make them.  If this couple (or the other couples mentioned in the NYT article) had done their homework before having the surrogate birth in the UK, they would have made arrangements to make sure the birth occurred in the US, or the US-born father should have been the sperm donor.  We see this here a lot on VJ--people complaining about immigration laws after making a decision, when they could have prevented the problem in the first place by knowing the laws before it was created.

Or just use a surrogate in the US. I bet they went the UK route because it didn't cost them $30k extra for compensation. Without understanding the repercussions.

(AFAIK in the UK surrogate compensation isn't legal, in many US states it is).

Edited May 24, 2019 by EM_Vandaveer

[EM_Vandaveer 2,408]

17 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

With a UK surrogate couldn't they still have the baby in the UK even if the USC spouse was the donor?

Yes, I think if the born USC spouse would have been the donor then this wouldn't have been a problem.....

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

37 minutes ago, EM_Vandaveer said:

Or just use a surrogate in the US. I bet hey went the UK route because it didn't cost them $30k extra for compensation. Without understanding the repercussions.

(AFAIK in the UK surrogate compensation isn't legal, in many US states it is).

I am pretty sure that is what happened with at least one of those couples. I will have to go back and reread the article but I do believe that they wanted to save on the expenses.

[Ben&Zian 4,398]

 ah, more whining about "rules" and not being able to bypass them. 

[Dashinka 24,487]

1 hour ago, Ben&Zian said:

 ah, more whining about "rules" and not being able to bypass them. 

What else is new?

[EM_Vandaveer 2,408]

They can file an I-130, though, right? Then the moment the kid lands on her immigrant visa & goes through POE, bam, she's a USC, right?