I was following a link over at GI Korea when I happened upon this human tragedy in the making:
CAMP CASEY, South Korea — As it stands now, John David Ruiz isn’t a citizen of any country.
John is the newborn son of Camp Casey transition center employee Juanito Ruiz, a former soldier whose application for his son’s passport and record-of-birth abroad was denied because of what the U.S. Embassy in Seoul considers questionable circumstances.
Ruiz said his four previous marriages and his foreign wife’s unexpected pregnancy shouldn’t count against the infant.
“I married badly, so what? Why are we using this against my son?” Ruiz asked. “I have no doubt whatsoever that the child is mine.”
Boy, life has gotten complicated.
8 Comments
$1,640 for a DNA test (see linked story)? That hurts.
Denying paternity and thus citizenship to his son goes against US common law. Brendon can clarify, but as I recall, the husband is presumed to be the father unless proven otherwise. In other words, according to common law, the burden of proof is not on the father.
Whoa there, counsellor! Common law ain’t got nothing to do with it. The Constitution and federal statute govern - the first Congressional enactment was by the first Congress and the current, codifed iteration of the law is the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 (also known as the McCarran-Walter Act) - and, in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998), the Supremes held that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 21). The issue was mooted in this case on the ground that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married).
“$1,640 for a DNA test (see linked story)? That hurts.”
I just hope the tests don’t come out negative. Now, that would hurt.
Hedge your bet, Mr. Ruiz. Pay for the cheap one first. It’s less than a couple dozen lady drinks.
“The issue was mooted in this case on the ground that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married).”
In other words, the law is discriminatory and therefore it is invalid?
…Don’t know. I guess it depends how you define parenthood.
Ah, no. Stuff your bleeding heart back in your chest and engqage your brain. Think about it: if a woman who is an American citizen gives birth to a child, is the child automatically a citizen of the US under a law that says so. Hint: Yes, because there is NO evidentiary basis for doubt about the fact of parenthood; someone has seen the kid pop out and confirmed the child is the mother’s child by issuing the birth certificate.
Cf the issue of paternity. Mere birth of child X to mother Y is NOT physical evidence of the paternity of Mr. B, even if he is the legal spouse or the fuckbuddy of Ms. Y.
There is thus a distinction in fact that permits the legislature to make a legal discrimination that is perfectly constitutional. That’s effectively what the Supremes decided in Miller v. Albright.
One Trackback
[...] More over at Marmot’s Hole. [...]