Unprecedented Off-Spring Unknown in Citizenship History

One twin was a citizen, the other undocumented.
A victory in court for their same-sex parents rebukes the State Department.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/22/one-twin-was-citizen-other-undocumented-victory-court-their-same-sex-parents-rebukes-state-dept/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8b6a298cc9e9

February 22

Ethan and Aiden were born in 2016 four minutes apart, coming from the same womb — a surrogate mom.  They had the same parents, Andrew and Elad Dvash-Banks, and the same toys and outfits.
But when the married dads and their sons moved from Canada to Los Angeles months after the boys were born, the twins came across the border differently. Aiden came with a U.S. passport.
Ethan had a tourist visa.

In a matter of months, Ethan was an undocumented baby.

The problem was that the U.S. Consulate in Toronto didn’t treat the twins the same, because it treated their parents differently: Andrew is a U.S. citizen, but Elad is an Israeli national.
The Consulate wanted Andrew and Elad to submit to DNA testing — seeking proof of Andrew’s blood relationship to their children.  Under U.S. citizenship laws, children born abroad to one American parent can typically qualify as a citizen. But not in this case.

[added editorial insights by A.R. Nash:
Actually, that is not correct because it means that the State Dept. was not willing to allow one or more of Andrew’s children to be understood to be United States citizens, which was not the case.  Any child that was pro-created by Andrew was automatically a U.S. citizen provided that connection was backed by evidence of some acceptable type. That has been U.S. policy forever.]

When the results came back, it was clear that Aiden had Andrew’s blood, and Ethan had Elad’s, a result of the men’s decision to each contribute to one embryo for the surrogacy pregnancy. Without Andrew’s blood, Ethan was denied U.S. citizenship in March 2017.

[Let’s examine the actual context of that decision.  It was aberrant from the beginning, but in a more typical and natural situation the circumstances would have one spouse being the wife (not a surrogate) who gave birth to twins but one of them was the offspring of a man who was not her husband, -and not a United States citizen.  His child would have therefore inherited his foreign citizenship and not U.S. citizenship since the child would not have been related by blood to any U.S. citizen.

That case serves to point out the fact that the historical circumstance of gay marriage, and gay marriage surrogate pro-creation simply DID NOT EXIST, yet the outcome would have been the same based on the same single, unchanging natural membership principle of group membership being inherited via blood descent, -with any other form of membership being merely a gift by law, -law passed by representatives or leaders of the natural members of the group/ clan/ tribe or nation.]

But on Thursday, after a stressful and uncertain couple of years for the parents and 2-year-old twins, a federal judge ruled that Ethan should have been granted citizenship from birth — and that there was nothing in federal citizenship law to support the State Department’s policy for resorting to DNA testing.

“For two years, this is something that weighed on us every single day,” Andrew and Elad Dvash-Banks said in a statement to The Washington Post. “Not knowing whether Ethan would be allowed to stay in the U.S. is something we went to bed with every night. Now, our family is whole and safe.”

[The function and purpose of citizenship policy does not include concerns about the feelings of citizen parents but about guarding the gateway to the highly prized possession of United States citizenship.  The judge in that case only saw what was visible, but completely missed what is invisible and always has been.
There is nothing in United States law that defines the basis of U.S. citizenship because nothing was ever needed, -that is until everyone forgot what that basis is as government grew to become a behemoth viewed as being the determiner and arbiter of all matters, both written and unwritten.
Some things were never written in law because there was no need to write them since they were universally understood and accepted.
Example: where is it written in federal law that adults have a right to procreate?  Where is it written that they have the right to own their own children?  Where is it written that they have the right to travel and live wherever they choose?  To pursuit happiness?  To adopt children? To teach their children their own values and beliefs?

Answer: nowhere.  It’s the same with the basis of natural citizenship.  It was never written because it was understood by all and accepted by all.  It’s the obvious principle that your children belong to you and to the group/s to which you belong, -they being the inheritors of your status and position and your future replacement. One of those groups is a national group, and its membership is called “citizenship”.

U.S. District Judge John F. Walter of the Central District of California found that the State Department had no legal justification for requiring Ethan’s legally married parents to “prove” he was their biological child, saying the State Department put forth a “strained interpretation” of birthright citizenship law — as well as what it means to be a parent. Blood is irrelevant, Walter ruled.

[The judge’s view was one coming from ignorance of fundamental principles, and that ignorance was passed on to him by law professors who were equally ignorant and taught by even older law professors who also were ignorant.  Once knowledge is lost, but it is not even known that it existed and is now lost, no one will question their own ‘common sense’ views about a subject since there is no other context within which to view the subject other than what they’ve been conditioned to perceive based on what they were taught, -and NOT taught.

The State Dept.’s “legal justification for requiring Ethan’s legally married parents to ‘prove’ he was their biological child” did not need to be spelled out in U.S. law because it was not determined by Congress but by the executive branch in its oversight of international relations, including immigration and visa issuance to foreigners.
There is a huge collection of State Dept. “laws” titled: INTERPRETATIONS. It is the legal opinion of the office of the Attorney General governing the meaning of laws passed by Congress, -and having to be put into effect by the executive branch, which has to know what the “law” means, and what to do-and-not-do to comply.

Over 100 years ago the authority over naturalization was put into the hands of the Attorney General, -chief legal officer of the United States, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) followed the legal policy that he laid out.
And what was the national policy?  It was to verify that foreign-born children in the custody of adult US citizens seeking passports for them (on the claimed basis of US citizenship) were the blood descendents of the US citizen(s) and not some foreigner’s child that had been adopted, purchased, or kidnapped.  That fact is something the judge did not know because he was never taught it.
So the ““strained interpretation” of birthright citizenship law” was not strained at all but only totally unknown to the judge due to institutional ignorance regarding the fundamental basis of United States citizenship.

“Blood is irrelevant, Walter ruled.”  But in fact, blood always has been and will always be ‘everything’….everything that’s natural and primal…and unwritten.  Unfortunately, the legal mindset has been allowed to evolve to think the very opposite, -to think that legal citizenship is the only kind of citizenship recognized in the United States when legal citizenship only pertains to about 5 % of the population, -with all of the rest possessing natural citizenship which was not given to them by government but came via natural inheritance.]

The couple’s attorney, Aaron C. Morris, the executive director of the LGBT-immigrant rights nonprofit ‘Immigration Equality‘, argued that the State Department’s flawed policy has a disproportionate impact on same-sex couples. If Andrew and Elad had been heterosexual, he argued, the consulate would have been less likely to question their blood relationship to their babies.

[Notice that the issue of the likelihood of questioning the blood relationship is irrelevant to the principle that determines who belongs to whom and to what.  The foreign citizen’s child does not naturally belong to the US citizen ‘parent’ and therefore does not belong to the United States.  It belongs to Israel and Israel has the responsibility to defend its rights, not the United States.
If it were the case, as it once was in the United States, that a foreign wife belonged to her husband via the marriage vows, then her (legitimate or illegitimate) child also belonged to her husband and through him they both belonged to the United States because all that belonged to him fell under his membership in his country (regardless of blood connection).  She, and her children if any, became US citizens upon speaking the wedding vow.  It was known as ‘naturalization by marriage’.
But when women were given civil rights and the right to vote all of that was dropped since wives then had their own citizenship and were no longer deemed to be whatever their husband was, whether American or foreign.]

“The first impact on [Andrew and Elad] that they will always articulate is they feel deeply disrespected that their family wasn’t being treated like other families,” Morris said. “The question of equality is first and foremost on their minds, both between Andrew and Elad as a married couple and their relationship to their children. For the State Department to tell Andrew that he isn’t really Ethan’s father was deeply upsetting to both of them.”

[The existence of such an ‘aberrant couple’ and an ‘aberrant birth’ from a historical perspective was never foreseen by anyone at anytime in American history until recent years, so to feel there presently is an illogical and perplexing problem with the State Dept.’s policy (in conformity with Homeland Security policy) is to be living in abject ignorance of history, like living with amnesia.  That of course is rather normal for human beings who are unaware of the past and where their world has come from.]

The State Department said in a statement to The Washington Post Friday that it was “reviewing the ruling in coordination with Department of Justice.”

Morris said that his organization has heard from numerous same-sex, binational couples who have run into the same problem while seeking citizenship for their child. Immigration Equality is also representing another married same-sex couple — two women, one a U.S. citizen and the other a British national — in a similar lawsuit covered by The Washington Post last year: Because the British national was the one to give birth to the baby, their son was denied citizenship.

[One can understand why when one knows what the basis of U.S. citizenship is.  It is NOT automatic national membership based on marriage in a patriarchal society in which men own their spouses, -as Muslim men own their several spouses.  When the American spouse does not ‘own’ the foreign spouse then the American spouse also does not own her/his foreign child, and thus that child only possesses the right to inclusion in the membership of its mother’s or father’s nation, not both nations.  Is that not plain old common sense?]

But while Morris believes same-sex couples are disproportionately affected, it’s a problem, regardless of the genders of the parents, he said.
Walter cited three other court cases between 2000 and 2018 involving married heterosexual couples whose children were initially denied citizenship because the American parent lacked a biological connection to the child.
The government lost all three times, and each time the reasoning was the same: Contrary to the State Department’s policy [WHICH HAS ABSOLUTE JURISDICTION OVER THAT ISSUE, NOT ANY COURT], there is no requirement spelled out in the law that a child be biologically related to his parent, the courts ruled, at least not for parents in circumstances like Andrew and Elad.

[It does NOT need to be spelled out in any law because it is: a) a natural law, -and b.) an issue solely reserved for the discretion of the Executive branch, not the courts.  No court has ever been given constitutional or statutory authority over such an executive branch issue.  There is a very real separation-of-powers issue which the courts (presumptuous judges) always fail to acknowledge.  Instead they step right over the line into the territory of presidential authority, -thereby violating the U.S. Constitution and the executive ‘wisdom’ and discretion of the President and his legal and diplomatic officers.]

Given the rulings, Morris said it’s befuddling as to why the State Department has not amended its policy to reflect the law.

[Moronic!  “reflect the law”??  As he stated, there is nothing there to reflect!  The policy is based on unwritten law that has been around since before the Constitution was written.  And it is a policy followed by all nations that follow natural law and not a perverted replacement that follows no natural principles at all.]

“This is not a statute. It’s not a regulation. It’s not required. It is the whim of the State Department to create this rule,” Morris said. “There is no justification for why this is happening over and over, either for same-sex or different-sex couples.”

[I trust that at this point you can see what folly that statement is, -blind folly at that.  But notice that there is no claim that the State Dept. ‘has NO RIGHT!’ to abide by a principled policy that has been followed for over 200 years.  It seems that the outrage is justified because it exists in a framework of ‘lack of equality’ that can’t be articulated logically while ignorance of the purpose of the policy results in confusion and befuddlement, -as if there is no purpose at all! ]

The requirements for birthright citizenship are relatively straightforward, laid out in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

[Words cannot express just how wrong that is.  The truth is anything but straightforward.  It is twisted, convoluted, inverted, distorted, and confused in many ways because of many reasons that are too numerous to articulate here.  Yet the long-term ignorance about natural citizenship results in the ignorant belief that the issue is simple and settled.  It fact it is the most complicated and unsettled issue in American history, -one which has prompted this author to write a zillions words to explain it all.]

Of the most basic principles, a baby born on U.S. soil is a citizen (although President Trump has said he wants to end this for children of noncitizens, breaking with decades of constitutional law).

[That first claim is flat-out false, sometimes, but not most of the time since 95 % of the babies born on US soil are born to American citizens, -so they are automatically and naturally U.S. citizens in the absence of any law, or constitutional amendment.
Ending the erroneous application of a misunderstood statement about native-born children is NOT ‘breaking with decades of constitutional law’ since none exists.  Only erroneous ignorant presumption exists.  It’s like blind people wearing 3-D goggles which allow them to ‘see’ but what they see is not real.
It’s all a result of institutionalized error.  Sort of like all of the government entities labelled with “Indian” this and “Indian” that, when in fact Indians are from India and nowhere else.  THAT is another example of stupid institutionalized error.]

If a baby is born abroad to married U.S. citizens, the child is a U.S. citizen. And, as in Andrew and Elad’s case, when one parent is a foreign national and one is a U.S. citizen, the baby can be a citizen as long as his or her American parent has lived in the United States for a period of five years. Andrew had.

[This is an excellent example of the blindness of ignorance.  The case stated in that example DISPROVES the point that is being rationalized.  How?  Because the American parent is the actual GENETIC PROCREATOR of the child, -as is the case with Andrew and his child.  His child was AUTOMATICALLY a U.S. citizen.  But Andrew’s American citizenship does not ‘rub off’ on Elad nor his child.

By ‘marrying’ Andrew, Elad was NOT automatically given U.S. citizenship as once were the foreign brides who married American men.  Elad was given nothing by marrying Andrew.  He had to procure the privilege to enter the U.S. via the usual diplomatic means.  He was and is a foreigner unless and until he completes the naturalization process.
His child was not born on U.S. soil so it cannot ignorantly be assumed to automatically be a U.S. citizen.   What it should have been given was permanent (Green Card) residence so it would have all of the privileges of U.S. citizens minus the right to vote as an adult.]

The couple met all of the requirements, and yet still they were asked for biological proof.

[Understand this: EVERY couple or single American who claims they gave birth (or fathered a child born) on foreign soil MUST produce convincing evidence or testimony that the American parent IS the biological parent of the foreign-born child.  THAT is U.S. policy and has been perhaps from the beginning.]

After the Consulate denied Ethan citizenship, the family ran into not only logistical challenges but also hurtful ones, Morris said.

[Observe the word: “challenges”!!  Not: ROADBLOCKS.  Not: IMPOSSIBILITIES.  Gee, if only life were not an unending string of challenges then we could all be blissfully happy!  But life is NOT devoid of challenges nor should it be expected to be.]

When the family wanted to travel to Israel to introduce the twins to Elad’s family, Morris warned them it might be too risky, fearing both children might not be allowed back in.

[Seriously???  How can a child with a United States passport NOT be allowed to enter the country of his father, which is also his own country?  Explain that to me, please.

When tax season came around, the fathers ran into trouble. Their son had no Social Security number.

[HOW ABSOLUTELY TRAGIC!!!] Why would he need one?  Was he going to start paying into S.S. or receiving a check from S.S?  Just goes to show how totally screwed up our tax code has become, and our national bureaucracy.]

When Ethan’s tourist visa expired in December 2017, the family sought a green card, compelling one of the most hurtful blows of all, Morris said.

Authorities required that Andrew be listed as Ethan’s “stepfather.”

[Now let me get this straight…. they WERE given a Green Card just as they asked, but the dear snowflakes had to suffer through the abhorrent humiliation of having the word “step” added to the word “father” -as if it were something too degrading to tolerate, -regardless of the millions of stepfathers across the nation who are actually listed as such??  TELL IT TO THE MARINES! -who at significantly younger ages have to fight and die for your right to not feel inconvenienced in the least.]

The decision by the State Department that put them in this situation — the reliance on a biological test — was based on the State Department’s Internal Foreign Affairs Manual policy, one that put forth a poor interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the judge found.

[Actually, the judge did NOT find that.  It is merely an ignorant opinion that he opined in his official capacity as the dispenser of absolute wisdom and knowledge.]

In applying a biological test, the government was referring to a separate part of the INA that applies to children born abroad out of wedlock. A biological link must be proven in those cases. But why, the judge questioned, would the government apply this statute to Andrew and Elad, who were clearly married at the time the babies were born and were clearly listed as their legal parents?

[Let’s be clear; it is NOT about legal parentage.  It is about BIOLOGICAL parentage. Legalities mean nothing in the arena of fundamental, primal rights. Adoptive parents have legal rights but they do not have a primal right to their adopted child.  Only the biological procreating mother (and father) have such a right.
An unmarried mother has a “legal right” to her child but for the United States government to give that child U.S. citizenship for life it needs to know for sure that it is actually her own child.  Otherwise we’d have a whole industry of hiring single American women to claim to be the mother of a foreign child so it could obtain US citizenship.  So, some form of ‘proof’ needs to be submitted to the Consular officers in order to give the US government assurance that it is not granting permanent citizenship to a total alien child based solely on fraud.]

The government, Walter found, appeared to be extrapolating the language in the “out of wedlock” statute to apply even in cases where the parents were married, requiring a blood relationship to transfer U.S. citizenship. There was no legitimate reason for doing this, Walter ruled.

[He misunderstood the situation.  Not knowing the principle of natural citizenship he mistakenly thought that citizenship was something determined by statute when in fact that is totally false.  The same principle guiding the policy regarding unmarried citizens and out-of-wedlock children applied equally to foreign-born children who are suspected of NOT being the biological child of an American parent who happens to be married.
Understand this: it did not matter whether or not the two men were ‘married’ or not.  All that mattered was whether or not both children were the biological children of an American father.  All American fathers possess the unalienable right to pass their national membership to their offspring as their natural group-membership inheritance.  IT’S AUTOMATIC….and UNWRITTEN!]

If Congress intended the biological tests to apply in those cases, he wrote, Congress would have said so when it passed the legislation.

[That is a baseless assumption, -one that assumes that all legislation is perfect and never overlooks the arcane possibilities tangential to the main purpose of the legislation.  As if Congress is All-Knowing and All-Seeing.  How absurd.  But again, whether or not they were married was irrelevant.  The judge was just too ignorant to understand the statute, the policy, and the unwritten law of natural citizenship.]

To make his point, he quoted the Congressional Record in 1957, which made clear that the purpose of the birthright citizenship law wasn’t intended to make it hard for people to become citizens. It was “concerned with the problem of keeping families of United States citizens and immigrants united.”

[This quote it totally irrelevant.  The couple and their children were NEVER separated nor under threat of being separated.  All that was needed, recall, was the addition of the single word “step” to the word “father”, and Presto!  All is perfect!]

As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit wrote in 2018, “The principle guiding this decision — that a child born into a legal marriage is presumed to be the child of the marriage — is a lasting one,” one that reflects “the traditional ‘aversion to declaring children illegitimate,’ as well as an interest in promoting familial tranquility through deference to the marital family.”

[Notice that that statement has no connection to any underlying principle of natural or human law or policy.  It is all just a lot of feel-good pablum, but good pablum. Just not ‘legal’ pablum.  (But you can call it judicial pablum if you like.)]

The consequences of the State Department’s blood-relationship policy can be dire. In two circuit court-level cases cited by Walter, the plaintiffs each faced deportation because the government didn’t believe that their U.S.-citizen parent was biologically related, making them eligible for removal. The rulings halted the deportations but did not force any changes in policy.

[uh…I read that as implying that they refused to submit a DNA or blood sample…because they in fact were NOT the biological parents but were only using the claim to secure residency and citizenship for a sister’s or brother’s child.  Nothing else makes any sense.]

“My hope is that they will reassess this position and come to a more sensible conclusion that is more in line with Congress, in line with the statute and more humane to queer families,” Morris said. “But will they? I don’t know. I don’t know how many times they have to be sued before they make this policy change or before a court compels them to, but we are committed to making this right.”

[It is not about being humane but about protecting the recognition of the privilege of  United States citizenship and not dishing it out like candy to anyone and everyone who wants it and thinks they fall under an the cover of an unadjudicated issue that has never seen the light of day in any court.  And probably never will.  The fundamental principle of natural citizenship has never been overtly recognized by the U.S. legal system even as it underlies the very foundation of our national family membership.]

More from Morning Mix:
An Arizona cop threatened to arrest a 12-year-old journalist. She wasn’t backing down.

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: