CNN report the latest news about job outsource to India: mother surogacy.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/30/india.wombs.for.rent.ap/index.html

Isn't there any job still sacred anymore? I am sad that the situation has worsen to this point. Will companies outsource accounting jobs too?

No pretty much not anymore. I watched a documentary not that long ago about the kidney business in Iran.... Pretty sad as well. Is it any worse than working in a sweat shop or in a dangerous factory?

Dave

Become a plumber. I doubt it'll ever be cost effective to fly one over from China to fix a broke pipe.

-Blast

"The couples fly to Anand for the in-vitro fertilization and again for the birth."

Raises and interesting question for US folks doing this, is the child a US citizen????

Nope. At least from what I understand. You have to be born on US soil to be a citizen. I am sure you can easily fill out the paperwork to get the child a visa and a green card.

Dave

"...At least from what I understand. You have to be born on US soil to be a citizen.."

Actually, I am pretty sure that a child born to US citizens outside of the country would still be a US citizen. Guess I will have to find the time to ask Mr. Google this one, just to be know...

http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/birthrightcitizenship.htm

Here ya go. These children are not born to US citizens, but to Indian citizens. It is an interesting idea thou...and I am sure the courts will have a lot to say on the matter.

Dave

"...not born to US citizens, but to Indian citizens..."

It will indeed be an interesting court battle one of these days. Genes, DNA, birth mother, etc etc etc...

This seems immoral to me with the number of children in the world waiting to be adopted...

Good point...

Same could be said of any couple wanting to have their own child in an already overpopulated world. Only difference here is that they're renting someone else' body for the process.

Too true on the adoption issue. Lots of kids in China need a loving home. I believe I heard millions.

Dave

My SIL tried to adopt a kid from china, they wouldn't allow her to adopt because her BMI was too high, aparently that made her an unfit parent in China's eyes.

You are right, ANY child born outside the USA, that's Father or Mother is a US Citizen, is a US citizen automatically. My best friend since 5th grade, married a Turkish woman while serving in Turkey in the USAF. Both his daughters were born in Turkey, but when he was transfered back to the USA, only his wife had to apply and become a US citizen, his daughters were born with dual US/Turkish citizenship.

So this surrogate thing may not raise any major problems after all, the "birth mothers" are not US citizens, but the "donor/father" and "donor/mother" are, which technically isn't much different from a father/citizen and mother/non-citizen situation.

Or a cook.

Actually, China is finally getting a handle on their number of abandonned kids. The one family/one child rule doesn't apply to adoptions and as Chinese citizens become more wealthy they've turned to adoption get more children. Because of the huge increase in demand, China has made the rules for adopting very strict, both inside China and by foreigners. China has reached the point where they can be very picky as to who gets to adopt a child. The demand by foreigners has outstripped supply (God, I hate describing it like that) and so the Chinese government will only release children to people they consider "the best of the best" It's not that they consider someone with a high BMI to be an unfit parent, it's just that there are some many people applying that they can be very picky. The Chinese government had to thin the ranks some and so they decided that all adoptive parents must meet certian levels of health and fitness (among other requirements).

Obviously, Chinese adoption is a subject near and dear to my heart and I can lecture on it for hours.

-Blast

A child born to legitimately married US citizen parents, anywhere in the world, IS a U.S. citizen. The child may also hold dual citizenship, depending on the country of birth, but the United States recognizes only that the child is an American citizen.

If the child is born to Indian surrogate parents (mother), regardless of who the biological (sperm donating) father is, the child is NOT (repeat NOT) a U.S. citizen. An American man and woman, for example, could go to India (or any country), conceive a child, transplant the embryo into an Indian woman, and the child would NOT be a U.S. citizen. (THis does not include a child born in India to an Indian mother, legally married to a U.S. citizen father, of course. That child may well be a derivative citizen, in that case, dependant on certain circumstances [residency requirements].)

Is this just your opinion, or can you point to a case where this has already been decided by a court?

Hmm, I dunno, does the irresponsibility of one group of people translate to increased burden for those who have no influence over them? I would think not, otherwise it seems we should abstain from eating until all those in Somalia and Ethiopia are fed.

I see no immorality in wanting to preserve one's lineage if legally possible. The fact that economics plays a role shouldn't necessarily make it immoral either, lots of kids are orphans due to economic circumstances.

I guess it depends on your convictions. From my perspective, it is far more immoral for anyone to bring a child into this world whom the parent(s) cannot adequately care for, which is far, far more pervasive than this.

This lays it out pretty much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law
but the issue hasn't been decided yet at the court level. The law recognizes the child if one parent is a citizen, but this is a scientific way of having children and is different that what has already be decided/argued at least as far as I know.

Dave

Niether. It's federal law. Specifically, beginning with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and carrying forward through several revisions snice then. It's what I do for a living.

ANY law can be challanged in a court. ANY law. The issue is not whether it might be challenged, or should be challenged, or could be decided by a District Court, or an appelate Court...... the issue is, what is the current law.

First off, reliance on Wikpedia can be deceiving. I won;t say any more than that, EXCEPT to say that everyone points to it like its "facts" are written in stone.

The law recognizes a foreign born child, if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen, DEPENDANT on certain residency requirements. If both parents are U.S. citizens, legally married in any jurisdiction, then it doesn;t matter where the child was born.

However, a child born to a surrogate mother is not a U.S. citizen. As in the previous post, we are talking current law, NOT whether a court might decide something someday. If we look at it that way, then ANY crime or ANY legal matter is irrelevant if we say "Well, a court might decide differently". Of course they might. We see, more and more everyday, numerous examples of the Courts MAKING law or, UN-making laws that were written. That is not their function and to postulate that they might is akin to giving them the right to (continue) to do so.

Ok.... so let's postulate ((( )))

John and Jane Doh! are Americans. Both are legally married in Kentucky. They go to India where an Indian woman carries Jane's baby to term. WHen the baby is born, it is born to Tashira (Indian woman), NOT to John and Jane Doh!

So, John and Jane want to bring this baby of "theirs" back to America. They find that the baby is not a U.S. citizen. They file a suit in Federal court. Since the issue is unusual, the Court may decide that, under certain conditions, a baby born in this manner is a U.S. citizen. Or they may decide against. The point is, up until they do decide one way or another, the baby is a foreigner...an alien...a person not a U.S. citizen.

Now, maybe they adoted this child that Tashira gave birth to? Ok, with certain requirements, i.e. certain conditions being met, the child may be a U.S. citizen under current law. But that's assuming they adopted the child legally under Indian's law.

In the end....under current law....the baby's an Indian at best.

Absolutely, but as of now, the NIA, does not discuss the surrogacy situation we are discussing. Ultimately it will depend on how they interpret the law. Is a child whom BOTH it's US father and US mother actually conceived the child, it's parents, or is the incubator?

Do parents that do this surrogacy inside the US, then have to "adopt" the child from the surrogate?

As I said earlier, it "may" raise an interesting question.

Can you point to where in the Immigration & Naturalization Act it address' surrogacy births?

Yes, this is what I'm saying. EVERYTHING depends on how someone interprets the law. BUT, the law is current....the child would not be a U.S. citizen (UNTIL being decided in a court).



That's irrelevant to whether the child is a U.S> citizen or not. If foregin born, it is relevant.

No! We don;t need to. See? The child is born foreign. There is no need to point to any surrogacy....it isn;t addressed and doesn;t need it.

Forget this surrogacy issue for a moment. Think foreign born. Now, the onus is on the parent. The child is not subject to jus soli.... place of birth (in this instance, America or foreign). It's very simple, but we're complicating the matter by assuming what a court "might" do.

The law stands without court interpretation. In order to move the court to interpret, the PARENTS must initiate the action. See? The Government already has. See above posts for foreign born children.

Sec. 1409. Children born out of wedlock
TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I, Sec. 1409.
STATUTE

(a) The provisions of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 1401 of this title, and of paragraph (2) of section 1408 of this title, shall apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if -

(1) a blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence,
(2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person's birth,

Would this not make the child a US citizen by birth???

Well yes and no, Chris. Remember that now you are speaking of illegitimate births, independant of surrogacy, and there is more to the Act (by way of Interpretations and CFR).... what you have is raw Section 1409 INA. With this issue, there are residency requirements depending on the date of birth of the child. This has nothing to do with surrogacy. This is one U.S. citizen parent and one foreign born child.

Now, 8CFR and Interpretations both go hand-in-hand with the INA. The INA sets forth raw legalality. Interpretations are a collection of Court interpretations, Congressional intent, and Governmental interpretations. 8CFR combines, or rather, is a collaboration of the two into Code.

When you speak of illegitimacy, surrogacy doesn;t enter the equation (that I can think of). So, yes, if the parents (and sometimes the age of the child) had the required U.S. residency, prior to or after the birth of the child, as required, then the child would be a U.S. citizen (derivative).

Again....let me say just once more again, the law is established. A foregin born child and parents are subject to certain restrictions and requirements. The law is clear on this. Just once more, let me say, the "pondering" of whether a surrogate child COULD BE DETERMINED IN COURT to be a U.S. citizen is irrelevant. Again...irrelevant. Unless there is already a decided case out there, when the foreign born child enters the U.S., the burden of proof of citizenship is on the child (parents).

It doesn;t matter if we like this or detest it....if we want it kept this way or want it changed... if we want ice cream or potato chips..... the law stands UNTIL it's challenged and, affirmed or changed.

Immigration law is the most complex law on the books in the U.S. (in the opinion of Congress and those charged with prosecuting it). We're not going to understand it in this thread. Even in my daily work, there are complex issues that arise that we don;t have to deal with in criminal law. However, the basis of the law and Interpretations (note capital "I") stand on their own, despite what some Court may do "in the future".

On edit: Ok. Here's a thought. Say in India for example, they don;t really care who might actually deliver a child. Assume that they care only that the child is blood related to two people, and these two people are U.S. citizens. They issue a birth certificate to John and Jane, showing their baby Joey, was born on whatever date in India. Well now, what you have there is 2 U.S. citizen parents and a foreign born U.S. citizen child. Pretty simple. But the issuanc eof a birth certificate and the established "parentage" of the child is dependant on the host country, it doesn;t really have much to do with us in the U.S.

Izzy, in October I'll have 24 years in this "business". I didn;t always think this way, but I do now. I really think the law should be changed away from jus soli.... changed to mean that birth in the U.S. doesn;t automatically confer U.S. citizenship. If the parents are here legally at the time of birth, jus soli should apply. If illegal at the time of birth, it shouldn;t. I heard something on the radio the other night that suggests the law might already, in effect, mean that, but the we "Interpreted" it wrong years ago and set a precedent.

Cubans just need to touch the US soil and they can stay with or without a child thanks to the ol' USA Government.

Dave

OK, I understand that, but that's kinda the question in my mind.

Whether the law currently address' surrogacy or not, which it appears is does not, then under the current law, would both these situations be fairly equal?

1. US citizen father and foreign mother conceive/birth an out of wedlock child outside the US.

2. US citizen father and US citizen mother (although her status may not be relevant) in vitro conceives a child with a surrogate birth mother.

Both fathers of record are US citizens, so both children might also be under current law couldn't they?

Neither case would rely just on the law anyway would they, since it reads:

(1)a blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence,

Both situations will require some form of inquiry to establish or disavow a child's citizenship.

Laws never stand separate and above their applied interpretations.

1. yes/no. Illegitmate births are conditional.
2. depends on how the host country records the birth.



No. A person entering the U.S. is an alien until they establish otherwise. So, say the documentation and circumstances shows the child is an alien. The Inspector will admit the child into U.S. as such. The parents want their child to be "deemed" a U.S. citizen. They sue. This "inquiry" takes 2 years...say. Regardless of the outcome, from the time of entry to the moment of decision, the child will be an alien.

Uhh, I'm not saying they wouldn't, just that in either case the child's status will be established by some form on inquiry.

Since there is no prior ruling on surrogacy cases, it would seem fairly impossible to know for sure what will happen until a precedent has been set.