Illinois Woman Told She is No Longer US Citizen

[Gawain 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585152,00.html?test=latestnews

Quote

For years she, and the U.S. government, thought the Bulgarian-born 34-year-old was an American citizen. But, when she went to renew her passport in 2003, the State Department reportedly told her something terribly different.

Boneva's father was born in Indiana, and the consulate in Bulgaria gave her U.S. citizenship while she was growing up in the country in 1981. She was able to visit relatives in Chicago and eventually move to the area in 1997, the Chicago Tribune reported.

First of all, I would like to point out that since her dad was born in the US, he is a citizen. Period.

Quote

The State Department said in the letter that an employee at the consulate broke a rule that required her father to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years before she was born, the Tribune reported. Her father had only lived in the U.S. for six years before moving to Bulgaria.

The letter also pointed out that that requirement changed in 1986 to five years, meaning that someone in the Boneva's position today would be eligible for U.S. citizenship, but she isn't.

I'm not going to research this, but this has no bearing on her father's citizenship, so why should it have a bearing on hers? So, now her passport has been revoked, and now she technically doesn't have a green card.



It's this kind of bureaucratic bullsh*t that should be swept away with the stroke of a pen. SecState Clinton should eliminate the issue through the powers of her office, then have a review of the standards in place. Through a non-malicious act, State has now drastically created a serious quality of life issue for this family. This woman should not have to start waiting at the back of the line.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[wayneflorida 0]

State Department spokeswoman Adriana Gallegos declined to talk with the Tribune about Boneva's situation, but told the paper in an e-mail, "We don't revoke citizenship, we revoke documents." Gallegos wouldn't specify to the newspaper what that meant for Boneva.
--------------------------------------------------------

Bullshit speak from govment worker. 22 years she was a citizen then poof. Wonder if she could sue
in some way under contract law or such.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

It is an interesting question, because it creates a second class of citizen. Should the child of someone who was born a citizen outside the US, who has never set foot in US, be a citizen? What about their child?
In this particular case I agree Clinton should deal with it on an ad hoc basis. What the rule should be is another question. Do you agree with the rule as it stands now without reference to the case?

[Andy9o8 3]

I'm pretty sure that a person either does or does not have citizenship by virtue of meeting or failing to meet certain requirements specifically set forth in US statutes. The requirements are what they are, and they cannot be waived or altered either permanently or on an ad hoc basis by any member of the Executive branch, including the President or his cabinet secretaries. Only Congress may change existing statutory guidelines. If there is a question as to whether a person does or does not meet existing statutory requirements, that question may be settled only by the judicial branch.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The letter also pointed out that that requirement changed in 1986 to five years, meaning that someone in the Boneva's position today would be eligible for U.S. citizenship, but she isn't.

I absolutely agree with Andy's post above - so, by law, she wasn't a citizen -

but the issue is, due to the mistake not her fault, she lost (decades of) opportunity to become a citizen through legal/defined naturalization procedures. So I'd definitely think she should get special consideration to be granted citizenship under these circumstances.

However, as to the blue text highlighted - isn't she exactly that already? (2010 is, actually, after 1986) - or does the rule specifically define grandfathering clauses to exclude her situation now?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DiverMike 5]

This thread is certainly confusing, but I guess the someone in the Boneva's position today refers to someone born after 1986. Boneva's birthdate is before 1986. I suppose in 1986 they made the change from that point forward and did not make it retroactive.

I'm just guessing.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

The letter also pointed out that that requirement changed in 1986 to five years, meaning that someone in the Boneva's position today would be eligible for U.S. citizenship, but she isn't.

I absolutely agree with Andy's post above - so, by law, she wasn't a citizen -

but the issue is, due to the mistake not her fault, she lost (decades of) opportunity to become a citizen through legal/defined naturalization procedures. So I'd definitely think she should get special consideration to be granted citizenship under these circumstances.

However, as to the blue text highlighted - isn't she exactly that already? (2010 is, actually, after 1986) - or does the rule specifically define grandfathering clauses to exclude her situation now?

I think it is the laws in effect at the time not what they are now

[Bolas 5]

People get way too hung up on process vs. results.

Just because some piece of birth paperwork was found to be wrong after trying to renew her passport doesn't make her any less of a citizen IMO.

Sorta like when someone is found out to have escaped from jail 30+ years later after living a normal life. They may not have served their full time, but have shown they are rehabilitated.

Long after the fact cases such as these should take into the fact what the person has done, not what was just discovered.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

People get way too hung up on process vs. results.

Just because some piece of birth paperwork was found to be wrong after trying to renew her passport doesn't make her any less of a citizen IMO.

The point is she never was a citizen. The fact that she was given the rights of a citizen was a mistake.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Just because some piece of birth paperwork was found to be wrong after trying to renew her passport doesn't make her any less of a citizen IMO.

Your opinion is grand, but every court in the land would disagree with it.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

People get way too hung up on process vs. results.

Machiavellian much?

She was never a US citizen per the rules.
The mitigating factor is that is through no fault of her own.

IMO - in the review "process" she should get special consideration in that she would have been easily able to become a US citizen during that interval had the mistake not been made. Her actions in that time testify to the fact that she would have done so.

nowhere in here, though, does it say that she was a good or a terrible faux-citizen during the last couple decades...............


Edit: wow, 3rd to respond in kind. I'm getting slow on the draw.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Just because some piece of birth paperwork was found to be wrong after trying to renew her passport doesn't make her any less of a citizen IMO.

Your opinion is grand, but every court in the land would disagree with it.

Of course courts would disagree, they are more focused on process than just about anyone.

The biggest issue is government processes are usually completely convoluted and illogical.

It all comes down to letter of the law versus intent of that law.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

People get way too hung up on process vs. results.

Just because some piece of birth paperwork was found to be wrong after trying to renew her passport doesn't make her any less of a citizen IMO.

The point is she never was a citizen. The fact that she was given the rights of a citizen was a mistake.

While it may have been a mistake to begin with, what she has done while she and everyone else thought she was a citizen hopefully will be taken into account.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

People get way too hung up on process vs. results.

Just because some piece of birth paperwork was found to be wrong after trying to renew her passport doesn't make her any less of a citizen IMO.

The point is she never was a citizen. The fact that she was given the rights of a citizen was a mistake.

It brings up a question as to why such a rule exists in the first place. Her father's status as a citizen is absolute. His status as a citizen is his unless he gives it up. The only thing his daughter's disposition is affected is that should wouldn't be eligible to run for President.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just because some piece of birth paperwork was found to be wrong after trying to renew her passport doesn't make her any less of a citizen IMO.

Your opinion is grand, but every court in the land would disagree with it.

Of course courts would disagree, they are more focused on process than just about anyone.

The biggest issue is government processes are usually completely convoluted and illogical.

It all comes down to letter of the law versus intent of that law.

Whatever. You're wrong, but I just don't have the interest to argue further.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

It brings up a question as to why such a rule exists in the first place.

To state the obvious: because Congress decreed it so by statute (as I realize you know).
If you feel very strongly about it, petition your local Congress-members and Senators. Better yet, get some like-minded people and start a grass-roots movement. You'd be surprised at how much attention members of Congress really do pay to citizen feedback.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

People get way too hung up on process vs. results.

Just because some piece of birth paperwork was found to be wrong after trying to renew her passport doesn't make her any less of a citizen IMO.

The point is she never was a citizen. The fact that she was given the rights of a citizen was a mistake.

It brings up a question as to why such a rule exists in the first place. Her father's status as a citizen is absolute. His status as a citizen is his unless he gives it up. The only thing his daughter's disposition is affected is that should wouldn't be eligible to run for President.

See my first post as to the reasons why the limitation exists. As for her not being able to run for POTUS, why not? You don't have to be born in the US to run for prez, you need to be born a citizen.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

You don't have to be born in the US to run for prez, you need to be born a citizen.

Actually, that's natural born citizen. So I guess C-section babies don't count.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

It brings up a question as to why such a rule exists in the first place.

To state the obvious: because Congress decreed it so by statute (as I realize you know).
If you feel very strongly about it, petition your local Congress-members and Senators. Better yet, get some like-minded people and start a grass-roots movement. You'd be surprised at how much attention members of Congress really do pay to citizen feedback.

Believe me, I have my correspondence regularly with several members of the House and their staff. Unfortunately, priorities still lie with the economy, defense and spending. The aforementioned screw-up by State will have to be addressed later. To see how such a simple screw-up causes the stupid-est of outcomes stifles the imagination. If statutes need to be changed down the road, fair enough. That takes time, time which, oddly enough, in legal terms, this woman does not have.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,179]

>Long after the fact cases such as these should take into the fact what the
> person has done, not what was just discovered.

So let's say a Mexican citizen crosses the border, gets a job that he is told is legal with a landscaping company, then gets caught ten years later by the INS. They threaten to deport him. Should he get citizenship due to his long time spent working here? Let's say his father was born in the parking lot of a hospital in Chula Vista before he was returned to Mexico. Should he get citizenship then?

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

It brings up a question as to why such a rule exists in the first place. Her father's status as a citizen is absolute. His status as a citizen is his unless he gives it up. The only thing his daughter's disposition is affected is that should wouldn't be eligible to run for President.

Such rules exist to prevent endless chains of "US citizens" living abroad and claiming citizenship based on a single American ancestor. The father's status as a citizen is absolute on his own account but his ability to pass that status on to his children born outside the USA has some restrictions on it.

It's hard to evaluate such cases when we in the public don't know all the facts. However, I think the government should be subject to similar rules as apply in denaturalization cases. That is, if more than two years elapse since a claim to US citizenship is first established, only a judge (and not a faceless bureaucrat) should have the authority to correct an erroneous claim to US citizenship.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

So let's say a Mexican citizen crosses the border, gets a job that he is told is legal with a landscaping company, then gets caught ten years later by the INS. They threaten to deport him. Should he get citizenship due to his long time spent working here? Let's say his father was born in the parking lot of a hospital in Chula Vista before he was returned to Mexico. Should he get citizenship then?

A better analogy--because it involves a similarly long time frame--might be to compare this woman's status to that of the illegal immigrants granted amnesty in the general amnesty of 1986 which legalized about 3 million formerly illegal immigrants.

Now some of the amnesty claims were, if truth be told, somewhat fraudulent. Not everyone who got amnesty in 1986 really qualified for it.

However, no one--not even the fiercest opponents of illegal immigration--these days would recommend that we go back and reopen those old cases. Maybe some people got green cards and (ultimately) citizenship on shaky grounds, but it happened and virtually everyone feels that, after more than 20 years, it is pretty much a fait accompli.

Your question posed a 10 year scenario but I would say that after 20 or 30 years the situation is qualitatively different.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[jclalor 12]

She should just be thankful for the good years she had here while not a legal citizen.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So let's say a Mexican citizen crosses the border, gets a job that he is told is legal with a landscaping company, then gets caught ten years later by the INS. They threaten to deport him. Should he get citizenship due to his long time spent working here?

This is pretty obvious case. However if the same Mexican citizen was told by the U.S. embassy that he's a U.S. citizen, got the U.S. passport from Department of State, voted on all elections, performed jury duty... now it gets more difficult.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Lacking the facts I would speculate that there is the probability that some fraud may have been involved there.

First, even regular visas are not issued by "some employees" in the Consulates. I suspect immigration issues go through even more scrutiny, and this would mean the whole chain fucked up. Including probably some people in Department of State as well.

Second, Department of State should have had a good reason to do this investigation. I doubt they have resources (or care about) to re-check every citizenship case that deep. It is not that easy to discover beyond reasonable doubt how many years someone lived in a country, so it indeed involved some serious investigations.

Third, the corruption level in Bulgaria is still quite high.

So my (pure speculation) guess would be that maybe some people in the U.S. Embassy in Bulgaria got some bribes to pass those cases in hope nobody notices it. Well, one of those cases was caught up, and Department of State run the investigation for every case which came through this person.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *