Tuesday, January 21, 2025

My Mom was an immigrant from Korea. I was naturally born in the US. If Trump does cut birthright citizenship, will I lose mine as well?

 

r/korea icon
Go to korea
•

My Mom was an immigrant from Korea. I was naturally born in the US. If Trump does cut birthright citizenship, will I lose mine as well?

정치 | Politics

Or does this only apply to babies of immigrants born from this year on? (AKA Gen Betas?)

 


[–]kai333 109 points  

Past that, there is a zero chance that they would ever amend the constitution in this day and age. Can you imagine trying to get 2/3 of the House, Senate, then ratified by 3/4 of the states?? Nah, this will just be one of many smoke screens up while the powers that be robs the US blind.

[–]Easy-Concentrate2636 42 points  

I agree. Watch the money.

That said, op, make sure your passport is up to date in case of worst scenario. No harm in being prepared.

[–]nutmac 21 points  

Even if it is retroactive, if your parents are legal immigrants, you are also a legal citizen.

[–]profkimchi 39 points  

That’s incorrect. The text of the order says one of the parents needs to be a citizen or permanent resident. It’s completely asinine.

[–]Calber4 5 points  

The only exceptions to birthright citizenship, as per the constitution, are for diplomats and invaders. They're going to argue undocumented immigrants are "invaders" (which is ridiculous, but with this supreme court who knows), but that at most applies fairly narrowly. Anything broader than that is blatantly unconstitutional.

[–]nutmac 5 points  

Isn't legal immigrant imply your parent was either a citizen or permanent resident? As opposed to temporary visitor? What part of that is incorrect?

[–]profkimchi 10 points  

I certainly wouldn’t define it that way and I imagine most other people wouldn’t, either. Someone on a student or work visa isn’t a legal immigrant?

An illegal immigrant is someone without a proper visa. Presumably a legal immigrant would be anyone with a proper visa to live in the U.S.

[–]nutmac -9 points  

Not to sound like a jerk but immigrant means permanency. The dictionary definition:

a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

[–]profkimchi 16 points  

Being on a work visa doesn’t mean you aren’t there to live permanently. You’re trying to split hairs that are too small to be split.

Here’s Washington state’s definition: https://www.dshs.wa.gov/faq/what’s-difference-between-legal-and-undocumented-immigrants

[–]Scared_Astronaut9377 12 points  

No, you are confused. Whatever definition you found in a random dictionary is irrelevant to the USA legal nomenclature.

[–]entelechia1 0 points  

The person can be on work or student visa while waiting for green card. The person is "legally immigrating", and the process can take years. So the EO is telling those people to avoid getting pregnant or get abortion during the waiting period.

[–]JD3982 0 points  

A legal immigrant by definition has to have permanent residence as an LPR. Those without, on work visas etc., are migrant workers but not "legal immigrants".

[–]profkimchi 7 points  

An “illegal immigrant” is someone who moved without a proper visa. Presumably a “legal immigrant” would therefore be anyone else.

Here’s a definition from Washington state, for example: https://www.dshs.wa.gov/faq/what’s-difference-between-legal-and-undocumented-immigrants#:~:text=Legal%20immigrants%20are%20foreign%2Dborn,their%20temporary%20visa%20permitted%2C%20or

[–]touko3246 1 point  

There are different ways of categorizing the aliens (which is the proper lingo), but the ones most commonly used in immigration law contexts are:

  • Resident Alien (green card/permanent residents)
  • Nonresident Alien (all else)

and you could argue illegal aliens are a subcategory of NRA.

[–]profkimchi 2 points  

My only point is that “legal immigrant” is certainly not a phrase that colloquially means “permanent resident or citizen”

[–]touko3246 4 points  

Someone on a nonimmigrant visa cannot be an immigrant by definition, at least under the context of Federal immigration laws. Certain visas like H-1B allow immigration intent but this doesn't mean they are immigrants in that context.

This may not be true in different contexts such as state laws and classifications for Federal taxation.

I'll also say the word also has different meaning on different contexts. For example, the word "immigration" in Immigration & Customs is used in a much broader meaning.

Obviously, this means I'm not refuting what you said about colloquial use of the word, but that isn't very meaningful in the context of those discussions.

[–]profkimchi 1 point  

The issue is that many people on student visas or work visas have the intent to try and stay longer. I’m sure many of them would classify themselves as “immigrants.”

Homeland security defines it as “Any person lawfully in the United States who is not a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or person admitted under a nonimmigrant category as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 101(a)(15).” Under that definition, most people on work visas would be classified as immigrants. Students would not.

[–]touko3246 4 points  

Under that definition, people on work visas are definitely not considered as immigrants.

Your quote explicitly excludes any person admitted under a nonimmigrant category as defined by INA section 101(a)(15), aka 8 USC §1101(a)(15).

Work visas are by definition nonimmigrant visas, because they are defined in one of the subparagraphs, after the wording (emphasis mine):

(15) The term "immigrant" means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens-

"Dual intent" visas allowing so-called immigration intent are simply the nonimmigrant classes that are missing the following phrase: an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning. Which only means there is no burden of proof for the alien to demonstrate they meet such requirements.

 

[–]profkimchi 1 point  

Here’s the list of immigrant and non immigrant visas: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/all-visa-categories.html

Plenty of work visas classified under immigrant visas.

[–]touko3246 3 points  

Those you are mentioning are not work visas. Those are basically work-based immigrant visas. The distinction is important.

Simply put, an immigrant visa is an unactivated ticket for permanent resident status that only becomes active when the visa holder is admitted at a port of entry. The way immigrant visa works is as follows.

  1. USCIS processes and approves Form I-130 (for family-based) or Form I-140 (for work-based) filed on behalf of the beneficiary.
  2. Copies of approved petition & approval notices are sent to consulate for what's called Consular Processing.
  3. The beneficiary schedules an interview when they get a notice from the consulate.
  4. After an interview, the consulate will approve and stamp the immigrant visa absent any issues, or request additional information/processing if necessary.
  5. With an approved immigrant visa, the beneficiary travels to the United States.
  6. At the Port of Entry, an immigration officer will either stamp the visa with I-551, or provide a temporary printed Form I-551. I-551 is the proof of permanent residency, also known as the green card in its card format. Now the holder is a permanent resident, legally an immigrant.
  7. A new green card will be produced and mailed to the registered address in a few weeks.

As you can see, immigrant visa holders are U.S. permanent residents the moment they are formally admitted to the United States. At no point they are in the U.S. with a work visa. Staying on a visa implies nonimmigrant status.

An alien can adjust into the exact same categories without obtaining a visa when they are already in the United States. It's called Adjustment of Status with petitions filed to USCIS using Form I-485, and Form I-140 for work/employment based petitions.

[–]profkimchi 1 point  

No the distinction I’m making is simply that the EO said non PR/non citizen. Plenty of “legal immigrants” who wouldn’t have citizen kids!

But back to my original point: colloquially that isn’t how most people use the phrase.

[–]touko3246 3 points  

I was responding to the Dept. of State definitions you linked to support your argument that people staying in the U.S. with work visas would be considered immigrants under INA. Essentially, work-based immigrant visas are never what's referred to as a work visa in any context. This reply very much seems off topic to that line of discourse.

No the distinction I’m making is simply that the EO said non PR/non citizen. Plenty of “legal immigrants” who wouldn’t have citizen kids!

At least under the INA phraseology/definitions, there is no virtual distinction between immigrants and legal immigrants, absent some weird obscure exceptions I might have missed. Outside that possible exception (which I'm not even sure actually exists), immigrants or "legal immigrants" would not be affected thanks to their PR status.

But back to my original point: colloquially that isn’t how most people use the phrase.

Sure, but my point further back was that colloquial definitions are pointless for any conversation discussing semantics.

[–]profkimchi -1 points  

I’ll simply say that I don’t agree with your last point. When people use the word “immigrant” most of them won’t have the federal definition of it in mind. I consider for example grad students who are trying to stay in the U.S. to be “immigrants,” and I bet many others would, too.

And the last thing I’ll say is that Trump’s EO does indeed deny citizenship to the children of legal immigrants, regardless of how you define it.

[–]touko3246 2 points  

Of course you're entitled to disagree with my points, but the matter of fact is

And the last thing I’ll say is that Trump’s EO does indeed deny citizenship to the children of legal immigrants, regardless of how you define it.

this is absolutely not true under the INA definitions or any other technical definitions you linked deriving from it, because I've already sufficiently established there is at least one definition, aka the legal definition based on INA, where (legal) immigrants = LPR and therefore none of their children would be denied citizenship.

[–]profkimchi 0 points  

The state department’s own website says there are immigrant visas that are not yet PR so I’m not sure what to tell you.

[–]touko3246 2 points  

Immigrant visa holders are not PR, yet. When they get admitted at POE, their immigrant visa becomes invalid, and I-551 stamp/form becomes the proof of formal PR status of whoever held the visa.

Seriously, you'll need to bring specific references to refute my claims. I know this almost to the letter, thanks to the fact that I had to research the whole process for becoming a PR.

[–]profkimchi 1 point  

But that’s literally been my only point. There are “legal immigrants” who would not have citizen children until they got PR.

 

[–]touko3246 1 point  

They become PR immediately as part of admission process. I'm having trouble understanding why this is so difficult to understand.

If they hold immigrant visa but not admitted to the United States yet, and have children, then this whole discussion is moot because the birthright citizenship from 14th Amendment does not apply to the persons born outside the United States.

It's also not possible to obtain an immigrant visa inside the United States. One must go through Adjustment of Status.

That said, I'll actually concede the point because you can be paroled in and the definition of INA "immigrant" does not have exclusions for being paroled or not admitted. One could also potentially argue that people with AOS pending without the previous nonimmigrant status being valid would be considered an INA "immigrant" but not an LPR yet.

But these are rarer circumstances, and if being ineligible for birthright citizenship from a nonimmigrant parents is being considered normal this is also a non issue (because they are not LPR yet).

[–]profkimchi 1 point  

Don’t you still have to apply for LPR once you arrive?

[–]touko3246 2 points  

No. LPR status is legally active for all practical purposes the moment I-551 stamp/form is received. Card format green card is also I-551. They are the same things: proof of permanent residency.

FWIW being a permanent resident doesn't even require a valid unexpired I-551 though, it's a separate concept. Although not renewing the physical green card would put one in violation of other immigration laws and/or regulations.

[–]profkimchi 1 point  

So all of those “immigrant visas” have LPR as soon as they arrive? I admit that would be news to me. But will concede that point if true!

[–]touko3246 2 points  

Correct. They just need to wait a few weeks for a physical card with longer validity, which is why there is a temporary form of proof provided upon admission.

Some few additional resources:

Department of State

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/the-immigrant-visa-process/step-10-prepare-for-the-interview/step-12-after-the-interview.html

(Emphasis mine)

Entering the United States

When traveling to the United States, the primary (or principal) applicant must enter before or at the same time as derivative family members with visas. A visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials have authority to grant or deny admission. Learn about admission and entry requirements on the CBP website. When you are admitted, you will enter as a Lawful Permanent Resident, also called a green card holder, and will be permitted to work and live in the United States.

USCIS

https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/temporary-i-551-stamps-and-mrivs

(Emphasis mine)

A machine-readable immigrant visa (MRIV) usually has the following text on it: “UPON ENDORSEMENT SERVES AS TEMPORARY I-551 EVIDENCING PERMANENT RESIDENCE FOR 1 YEAR.” When a new immigrant first enters the U.S., U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will stamp the passport with an admission stamp that indicates the immigrant has permanent resident status and has the date the new immigrant entered the U.S. The employee’s foreign passport with the MRIV is evidence the employee has permanent residence status for 1 year from the date of admission. Even if the MRIV is issued without the statement “FOR 1 YEAR,” employers should treat the MRIV as an acceptable List A document valid for 1 year from the date of admission.

[–][deleted]  

[deleted]

[–]profkimchi 2 points  

Who cares what other countries do? It’s asinine given the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution. I don’t care about the British nationally act for this discussion.

[–][deleted]  

[deleted]

[–]profkimchi 2 points  

Fought over taxation without representation. But sure.

[–][deleted]  

[deleted]

[–]profkimchi 1 point  

Dude wtf are you talking about lol

[–]ohblessyoursoul 0 points  

Some countries went back 4 generations when they inacted something similar. Some Americans are only 4 generations out of slavery. Which means they would also lose citizenship.

[–][deleted] 4 points  

You have more faith in SCOTUS than most of us.

[–]mattnolan77 9 points  

I don’t see how people have been paying attention recently and don’t understand how corrupt the Supreme Court is.

[–]ohblessyoursoul 0 points  

Other countries have done this before and did make it retroactive. The Dominican Republic being the most recent example. You all seem very confident but there is a precedent in history.

[–]kiddmit3 53 points  

"The incoming administration will make the case that a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment will allow the administration to exclude two categories of infants from the right to U.S. citizenship: Infants born to a mother who is unlawfully in the country and a father who is not a citizen or permanent resident, and infants born to a mother who is authorized to be in the country for a temporary period of time and a father who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. 

The latter group includes people in the United States with a work, student or tourist visa."

https://19thnews.org/2025/01/birthright-citizenship-trump-executive-order/

While I don't think it will survive the challenges, just in case - does your mom and dad fall under those that are excluded? Are either of your parents permanent residents or US citizens?

[–][deleted]  

[removed]

[–][deleted]  

[removed]

[–]ZBLongladder 8 points  

I mean, we've already set a precedent that amendments can be repealed...the 21st repealed the 18th. The problem is that getting 3/4 of the states to agree on anything in the current political climate is simply impossible.

[–]gwangjuguyIncheon 3 points  

This isn’t a question for this sub.

[–]EchoingUnion 5 points  

Yeah the post made me double check what subreddit I was on lol

[–]ohblessyoursoul 5 points  

Lol. Democracy and constitutions only matter if everyone agrees to the rules. They don't care about rules. Or laws. And they've already stacked the courts. This is exactly how nations fall.

[–]brandonzinho 3 points  

It's broader than "illegals." It's possible to come to the US legally on a tourist, student or work visa and have an anchor baby. This executive order applies to them as well.

[–]EchoingUnion 2 points  

The fact that your mother was specifically a Korean immigrant (as opposed a German, Indian, Chinese or Polish immigrant) doesn't change the answers to the question you asked in the post.

[–]mariusherea 1 point  

If they cut birthright citizenship, who’s left to be a citizen? The ones coming from outer space?

[–][deleted]  

[deleted]

[–]mariusherea -4 points  

So America will belong to Amerindians, since everybody else comes from other nations:)

[–][deleted]  

[deleted]

[–]mariusherea 0 points  

My friend, take a chill pill and allow me to not “discuss a serious topic” just because you want to.

If you want to talk about serious topics, let’s start with why people feel the need to be agresive towards others for no reason.

[–]Tallywacka 2 points  

Jus soli is almost exclusively limited only to the America’s, 33 out of 195 countries, and out of that 33 the majority are in terrible shape.

You effectively have a handful of competent countries where this policy exists, because it’s a terrible policy

14th amendment was created to address slavery being abolished, the amendment needs to be updated or removed just as people are calling for the same of the electoral college

[–]dvdhn 2 points  

Probably the native Americans

[–]Key-Custard-8991 1 point  

Same thought 🤣

[–]pinewind108 0 points  

Who entered the US illegally.

[–]touko3246 6 points  

Technically the EO only concerns how Federal government recognizes citizenship of a person. It doesn't (and cannot) address whether someone is actually a U.S. citizen under U.S. law or constitution without a new legislation or SCOTUS confirming a certain interpretation of "under the jurisdiction thereof" being valid, and this could have a retroactive impact in theory.

It is not impossible to have a ruling that limits retroactive application, but it is not something that can be guaranteed. Most likely some new legislation will be needed to avoid confusion, just like how the U.S. code was amended to match the wording in the 14th Amendment.

[–]Lost_Ad2786 1 point  

Precisely. It pains me to admit it but Trump and his lawyers did their homework regarding federal agencies.

[–]tired_fella[🍰] 7 points  

It also affects legal visa holders.

[–]itemluminouswadison 5 points  

Trump’s order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the U.S. to mothers who are in the country illegally or here legally on visas, if the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

oh shit. i wonder if green cards are considered a visa here

there's no way this is gonna pass. it's so core to the usa

edit: nvm i see

The order would deny U.S. citizenship, including passports, to those children born in the U.S. starting 30 days from now, if at least one parent isn’t an American citizen or green card holder.

[–]tired_fella[🍰] 1 point  

Yeah. Considering I know many Indian and Chinese Americans who wouldn't have been considered as citizens if they were denied on basis their parents were both on H1Bs or similar, this has a big implication. Maybe EB holders are safe because that's immigration intent visa, but those are extremely rare these days.

[–][deleted] 0 points  

So someone whose mother was here on a tourist visa but stayed one day past its expiration to give birth is not a U.S. citizen?

[–]itemluminouswadison 0 points  

you're asking the wronggg dude





Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)