Single parent Ellie Lavi is a US Citizen from Chicago, Illinois. She is currently located in Israel. Lavi’s twin two year old daughters, Maya and Shira, were born in-vitro and she can’t prove the nationality of the sperm donor(s). Lavi traveled to Israel specifically to conceive through in-vitro fertilization.
After giving birth to her twin daughters she went to the US Embassy in Israel to make application for their US citizenship. She was asked how the children were conceived and subsequently denied citizenship for her daughters because the US State Department refuses to recognize the in-virto conceived girls as “American”. She was told that children born overseas to Americans via in-vitro-fertilization are denied US citizenship when the sperm donor is not a verifiable U.S. citizen.
How come when I (Lucas Daniel Smith!) call and write to my US Congress I am told, invariably, that children born abroad to at least one US citizen parent are themselves US citizens (and Natural Born Citizens)?
In the past I’ve participated in university style debate with my agent Sean Boyer (and with others in the Birther realm) in which I have brought up such scenarios as in vitro fertilization as well as other sometimes unique birth scenarios. Usually such questioning is brushed aside as hypercritical-hairsplitting in the Birther realm but I do admit that agent Sean Boyer did listen, at great length (just as I have listened to him talk for hours on end), to my diatribe regarding unique, atypical and unorthodox birth scenarios.
I’ve been told, over the phone, by Tennessee US Congressman Trent Franks that even if Barack Obama was born in Kenya he would still be a US Citizen (and a Natural Born Citizen) because his mother Stanley Ann Dunhum was a US Citizen.
Why then does it matter to the US State Department that Ellie Lavi, and other single mothers that have undergone in vitro fertilization, do not know the citizenship status of the sperm donor?
Furthermore, at what date would the sperm donor’s citizenship status be calculated?
A. Date of the sperm donation?
B. Date of the in vitro fertilization?
C. Date of the child’s birth who is born of the donated sperm?
Those dates could span years in difference. The sperm donors citizenship could change from scenario A, B to C. Where’s the rule book on these fine points? And again why do we need said rule book when the US Congress has already been telling everyone that if Barack Obama was born in Kenya he would still be a US citizen because he was born to at least one US citizen parent?
Dear readers of the Was Obama Born In Kenya blog, whether you be of Birther stock or Obotopian descent, please aid and accommodate me in understanding this hypercritical-hairsplitting scenario (perhaps a double-standard scenario?) that has now made its way to the front lines and let me know what your thoughts are on this captivating matter.
For the record the US State Department says that Ellie Lavi and her twin daughters would need to move to the United States of America and remain in the United States of America for a period of six months and then, after that, officially apply for US citizenship for the twins.
It appears and seems that the twin girls, going on three years of age now, have not received Israeli citizenship either.
Is that what Stanley Ann Dunham did? Did she ever officially apply for US citizenship after she and baby Barack Hussein Obama II came to the United States of America?
Below please find an embedded video from MSNBC regarding Ellie Lavi and her twins Maya and Shira.
Children born out of wedlock after 1986, the father’s nationality is unimportant and not a factor in determining the child’s citizenship status. The rules do not mention type of conception.
This link has the same info previously found on the State dept website, but was scrubbed when the question of o-stinko’s eligibility arose. The last 2 sections on the 1st page are of interest to us.
http://www.visalaw.com/05jan1/2jan105.html
Frankly, I don’t see what the nationality of the father would have to do with an in-vitro birth. The father simply made a donation but will have no knowledge of, or influence on, the child at all.
Another interesting link
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5177.html
This one deals with U S citizens who use reproductive technology abroad.
My comment on this interesting topic will reference the 3/19/2012 ‘USA Today’ article titled, ‘In vitro babies denied U.S. citizenship’, by Michele Chabin.
Article Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-03-19/in-vitro-citizenship/53656616/1
The topic is complex, but after studying it, albeit briefly, I conclude that U.S. Immigration Law probably does need to be changed slightly in order to keep up with the recent advances in reproductive technology.
My comment attempts to address only the issue of how the new reproductive technology impacts decisions on granting ‘normal American citizenship’. Nothing stated in the following concerns the definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ as established in SCOTUS 1875 M v H.
Snips from the USA Today article:
“The incident points out what critics say is a glaring inequity in U.S. citizenship regulations. A child adopted overseas by a U.S. citizen is eligible to become an American, and a baby born in the USA is American even if the parents are not.
But a child born to a U.S. citizen overseas through the increasingly common practice of in vitro fertilization with embryos from donor eggs and sperm is not American, unless an American is one of the donors. And that can be hard to prove since clinics may not reveal such things about their donors due to confidentiality agreements, immigration law experts say.
…………………..
An embassy staffer wanted to know whether Lavi got pregnant at a fertility clinic. She said yes and was told that her children were not eligible for citizenship unless she could prove that the egg or sperm used to create the embryo was from an American citizen. (She could not supply the required proof because apparently both the egg and sperm used were from unidentified donors)
…………………..
The U.S. State Department says a child born outside the USA to an American cannot receive citizenship until a biological link with at least one parent is established. That link does not exist if an infertile woman uses donor eggs at a clinic to conceive.”
(bold emphasis added)
Thus, apparently even under current law, if it can be proven that EITHER the sperm donor or the egg donor used in conceiving the foreign born child is a U.S. citizen, U.S. citizenship can be granted the child, provided the proper forms are completed by the parent or parents.
Regardless, Lavi’s case, although unusual, does not seem too extreme. If she, as a single woman, had ADOPTED the twins overseas, born from unknown biological parents, the children could have been routinely granted U.S. citizenship under current law. To be consistent, it would seem that some similar provision in the law could be made to cover U.S. citizens who find themselves in Lavi’s unfortunate circumstance.
It appears from the following quote from the USA Today article that the matter is currently being investigated by the proper authorities:
“The U.S. State Department says it is merely following proper interpretation of the law, but it is studying whether it can interpret the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow U.S. citizen parents “to transmit American citizenship to their children born abroad through artificial reproductive technology in a broader range of circumstances.”
I hate to bring up the following, but in this current ‘Brave New World’ era, which seems so largely devoid of individual morality and responsibility, I believe it probably should be mentioned.
I think the revised law needs to stipulate that the birth mother, in cases where neither biological parent is known, must personally be made LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for the child she has born. That is, she needs in effect to legally ‘adopt’ the child.
It is my assumption that, currently and understandably, ‘gestational surrogate’ mothers are, in normal situations, neither legally nor morally responsible for the children they bear.
Call me cynical if you will, but if the birth mother is not specifically made legally responsible for the child under these new set of circumstances, I think we will need to begin envisioning a potential new, overseas ‘cottage industry’ — U.S. Citizen expatriate brood mares, utilizing advanced reproductive technology (with the help of well-paid doctors), donated (for a price) eggs and sperm, and an administrative staff to complete the necessary paperwork, annually creating new U.S. citizens, at a pace only limited by the investment capital available.
@ Bruce:
Thank you for your very thorough reply. When I read of Ellie Lavi the other day at MSNBC and also The Imperfect Parent website I was thinking, for some reason, that Ellie Lavi’s children were conceived with donor sperm but with Ellie Lavi’s own eggs.
I understand now that both the sperm and the eggs came from donors.
It seems that the US State Department policy could lead to absurd results. For example, a non-US citizen, lets say one of Osama Bin Ladin’s wives, conceived via in vitro fertilization. If the donor egg, or the donor sperm, used was that of a US citizen then Osama Bin Ladin’s wife, living in Afghanistan and having never been a US citizen would give birth to a US citizen.
???