US Citizenship Question

[myrionomos]

I have noticed that the people contributing to this forum seem to be able to answer all sorts of queries. I am writing a story with part of the plot as follows:-

It is 1914

A US citizen born and brought up in the USA has been in Australia for a year or so, he is white, male, about 24 and a bit of an adventurer.

War breaks out in 1914.

He thinks it would be exciting to join the fight and joins the Australian army with his local friends. (The USA not being involved until 1917)

He marries an Australian woman before going overseas to fight and leaves his wife pregnant.

The child is born

He dies in action

His wife dies in the 1918 flu epidemic

The child is brought up by his childless wifes sister as her own and she doesn't know of her own biological parentage until her adoptive parents die.

Would this child automatically be entitled to US citizenship or would she have to be registered immediatly after birth with the local US embassy to have that entitlement?

Post 1986 I am pretty certain that the child would automatically have the status of a US citizen but I am less certain about 1918 births. The rules have changed a lot over the years.

The story is essentially about her searching for her American origins.

 

[oggbashan]

Citizenship wasn't particularly relevant in 1914-18.

Very few people needed, or could afford, passports.

A child born in Australia to a father in the Australian Forces, with an Australian mother resident in Australia, would be assumed to be Australian.

The father MIGHT have lost his US citizenship by becoming an Australian soldier because he would have taken an oath of allegiance to the King.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

As I thought.

There was no such thing as an Australian Citizen in 1914-18 Australian Nationality.

The child and parents would have been British Citizens. Under the Bancroft Treaties between the US and the UK, the father, by remaining in Australia and enlisting in the Australian forces, would have lost his US citizenship.

"jus soli" means that a child born in Australia - at that time - would automatically be a British Citizen (unless born to diplomats or - unfairly - to aborigines).

Og

 

[3113]

Would this child automatically be entitled to US citizenship or would she have to be registered immediatly after birth with the local US embassy to have that entitlement?

I'm not positive, but I wouldn't think that she would automatically be entitled to U.S. Citizenship. Remember that only one parent is a citizen, and she was born in a foreign land. Remember that a U.S. citizen can't have dual citizenship (actually, they can, but that's a whole other can of worms). So if she's established as a British citizen, thinks of herself that way, calls herself that, etc., that might well negate her being American even though dad was American (and as Ogg pointed out, his joining a foreign army is another can of worms....).

But, as said, citizenship status was a bit lax in those times. A child born in, say 1915 would be 20 in 1935, and in 1935 it would be real easy for an Australian to visit the U.S. and pretty much never leave, citizen or no. Errol Flynn did just that in 1933. He didn't become a U.S. citizen till 1942.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

But then you have the case of Obama, 3, where he was born in Kenya to a Kenyan father and an American mother, then produced a fake Hawaiian birth certificate AFTER he'd been President for over a year.

 

[3113]

But then you have the case of Obama, 3, where he was born in Kenya to a Kenyan father and an American mother, then produced a fake Hawaiian birth certificate AFTER he'd been President for over a year.

Actually, his parents planned for him to be President which is why they announced his birth in the Hawaiian newspapers. If they'd had any idea that he wasn't going to be president they wouldn't have bothered.

It was an amazingly good certificate, too, as the U.S. Supreme Court thought it authentic enough to let him run for president when he was challenged on the point while running...

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Actually, his parents planned for him to be President which is why they announced his birth in the Hawaiian newspapers. If they'd had any idea that he wasn't going to be president they wouldn't have bothered.

It was an amazingly good certificate, too, as the U.S. Supreme Court thought it authentic enough to let him run for president when he was challenged on the point while running...

Actually that suit has not yet been settled. It is sitting in the supreme court on set-over after set-over which will prolly go on until he's out of office.

The real problem is the New York Times queried the State of Hawaii for an Obama Birth Certificate three times. The first two times preceeded the election and Hawaii could not find one. In 2009 the Times queried Hawaii again and an "authentic" birth certificate had magically appeared in the files. What does that tell you?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

That some people will find conspiracies under the nearest dry leaf.

 

[oggbashan]

A baby born in Australia in 1914 would be British, no matter what the original nationality of the father, or even the mother, because of jus soli - born in a country; a citizen of that country.

The father's US citizenship would have been presumed to have lapsed if he had left the US and not returned for two years because of the Bancroft Treaties. That wouldn't have been enforced unless there was some doubt.

If he had survived the war and had returned to the US with his wife and child they would be presumed to be US citizens once resident - because no one really bothered in those days. What did it matter? If you lived in the US, you were citizens (unless you were Native American or Black) and paid taxes if you had to.

Joining the Australian forces complicates matters. He would be assumed to be British (Australian - not that there was really a difference at that time) once he had enlisted. Therefore he would now have the same nationality as his wife and child who were already British resident in Australia.

Og

Note: When WWII was declared by the UK, the Australian Prime Minister declared that meant that Australia was at war too, because all its citizens were British. Australian citizenship, as opposed to British citizenship, is a post WWII construct.

Edited for PS: Og, Welsh by jus soli, English by parentage; formerly Gibraltarian by residence and passport; Australian by acceptance of their Immigration authorities and residence; currently EU (UK) but always British.

 

[oggbashan]

have some real reotic fun u slaves........visit the site below...and explore the sex freedom......

No thank you.

I hate spam.

Og

 

[3113]

In 2009 the Times queried Hawaii again and an "authentic" birth certificate had magically appeared in the files. What does that tell you?

It tells me that you've been drinking any bullshit Kool-Aid in sight in order to give yourself more reasons to hate Obama. A copy of the Birth Certiicate was released to the newspapers and fact checkers on June 13, 2008. It was certified as authentic. Gosh. That was 4 months before the election. But, of course, you'd argue it was fake, etc.

Please don't bother to do that here. If you want to do that, take it to a new thread so this one can stay on target. Bottom line, it's really impolite to jack this thread onto your own personal hobby horse. Start your own thread on the Obama-Birth-Certificate if you want to argue it at length with whomever you like for as long as you like. But have some sense and courtesy here and now and in this thread. Myrion needs information for a story, not a thread jacked side-ways into "why-I-hate-Obama!" land.

 

[cloudy]

"jus soli" means that a child born in Australia - at that time - would automatically be a British Citizen (unless born to diplomats or - unfairly - to aborigines).

The same situation happened in the U.S. too. My grandmother wasn't granted U.S. citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 - just four years before my mother was born.

 

[ishtat]

A baby born in Australia in 1914 would be British, no matter what the original nationality of the father, or even the mother, because of jus soli - born in a country; a citizen of that country.

The father's US citizenship would have been presumed to have lapsed if he had left the US and not returned for two years because of the Bancroft Treaties. That wouldn't have been enforced unless there was some doubt.

If he had survived the war and had returned to the US with his wife and child they would be presumed to be US citizens once resident - because no one really bothered in those days. What did it matter? If you lived in the US, you were citizens (unless you were Native American or Black) and paid taxes if you had to.

Joining the Australian forces complicates matters. He would be assumed to be British (Australian - not that there was really a difference at that time) once he had enlisted. Therefore he would now have the same nationality as his wife and child who were already British resident in Australia.

Og

Note: When WWII was declared by the UK, the Australian Prime Minister declared that meant that Australia was at war too, because all its citizens were British. Australian citizenship, as opposed to British citizenship, is a post WWII construct.

Edited for PS: Og, Welsh by jus soli, English by parentage; formerly Gibraltarian by residence and passport; Australian by acceptance of their Immigration authorities and residence; currently EU (UK) but always British.

When I saw this thread a couple of days ago I thought the determination of nationality might not be quite this simple.

I saw an American lady today who before she retired worked in immigration law. She made the following points.

As a matter of legal principle the geographical place of birth is strongly indicitive but not necessarily determinative of an entitlement to nationality.

The child would certainly be granted US citizenship, if the birth was registered with the local embassy as it commonly was with Americans overseas, and almost certainly if the child elected to apply when she was of an age to do so. The basic legal principle here according to my informant is that the US authorities tend to have a firmer regard for rights under their own law rather than the restrictions of another country's law.

I also asked about whether joining another country's armed forces would complicate matters and was told essentially "only if you backed the wrong side." In WW1 a fair number of American born volunteers fought with the British and some also fought for the Germans before The USA was involved in the war. The former suffered no penalty though it was technically against American law. Those who fought with the Germans were treated less kindly. (In WW2 some 7000 Americans volunteered to fight with British forces - again suffering no penalty although many of them originally volunteered to fight against the USSR(eventual allies) because of their invasion of Finland in 1940)

My informant also advised me that during both WW American soldiers when not fighting appeared to be extraordinarily efficient breeders and even when the parents were not necessarily married the US authorities were generally generous in not denying citizenship. However if the mothers or children were mixed race or black their chances were very poor.

My informant's conclusion was that this child could be either British or American, whichever she chose.

Finally I had thought that Og would claim that his entitlement to Britishness stemmed from his being a direct decendant of the Dowager Elector of Hanover (Act of 1705?) but then I recollected his connection to an older Royal title.

Unfortunately that full story cannot be told on Literotica as I believe his Granny was much less than 18 indeed barely a teenager when she gave birth to the future king.

 

[oggbashan]

...Finally I had thought that Og would claim that his entitlement to Britishness stemmed from his being a direct decendant of the Dowager Elector of Hanover (Act of 1705?) but then I recollected his connection to an older Royal title.

Unfortunately that full story cannot be told on Literotica as I believe his Granny was much less than 18 indeed barely a teenager when she gave birth to the future king.

In the UK, NOW, marriages are legal at 16.

In the time of King Henry VIII, legitimate marriages and births could take place at an earlier age than the currently legal 16.

Anything was possible before King Henry VIII's time if the Pope's consent was obtained, and unfortunately (then) all that was required was money and influence. During Henry VIII's reign, of course, that was changed to require Royal consent only and unfortunately (then) all that was required was money and influence.

In my real person, my descent has been traced legitimately back to 1326, with no underage brides or dubious parentages apparent, which is more than can be said about the UK's Royal Family. THEY can, but usually don't, claim descent from the Roman Goddess Venus, or the Greek Goddess Aphrodite; the Trojans; the Norse God Woden; Julius Caesar (who spread his favours widely) and Noah.

One of my very distant (14th Century) ancestors on the maternal line apparently came from Pamphlona in Spain. Another (15th Century) was Welsh, claiming descent from the Welsh Noah who survived the Flood on the top of Mount Snowdon (Y Wyddfa).

On the paternal line the legend is that we are descended from refugees in 56BC displaced from what is now Belgium by Julius Caesar's Gallic War.

However, ishtat is correct. What was and is legal in England and the UK couldn't be told in detail on Literotica without breaking the rules. One of my cousins was a bride a month before her 17th birthday. Her first child was born before her 18th birthday. I can make those unadorned statements but I couldn't recount even a fictional story of how she came to be a bride so young...

My first fiancée's younger sister was a mother shortly after her 13th birthday. Unfortunately that still occurs. Once is bad enough. She had her second child before she was 15. And no, I had no responsibility for either birth.

Real life and Literotica are different.

Og