"‘Oh yeah, we need to know if you’re a citizen.’ You know, I was born and raised in Kansas like Superman"
Superman was an undocumented alien.
Superman was an undocumented alien.
[1] http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2010/12/22/superheros-and-imm...
At least, that was official origin in the comics starting with John Byrne's The Man of Steel in 1986 and for several decades afterward.
That version of the story also explains why he looks enough like the Kents to pass for their biological son: the birthing matrix is designed to shape the child to look like whoever removes him from it because only his parents are supposed to do that.
For someone born in or around 1938 (actually earlier as the first 1938 stories depict him already as a past-teen age man) reading the story as re-written in 1986 is not particularly reliable.
In the original Kar-El was born on Krypton allright and sent to the Earth as a newborn.
And - whether he was actually born on Krypton or on the Earth - the Certificate of Birth is definitely false IF it states that Jonathan and Martha Kent are their parents, an on th eother hand actually adopting him wouldn't have been as easy as it may seem from the comics strips.
See also (for fun): http://thelegalgeeks.com/2016/06/18/how-did-ma-and-pa-kent-a...
In any case I would say that Superman's citizenship and actual legality of documents as Clark Kent are highly debatable, and I wouldn't be using that as an example for proving US citizenship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Superman#Pre-Crisis
"In 1938, DC Comics published Superman's debut in Action Comics #1, Siegel and Shuster were required to cut the story down to thirteen pages, and so the origin story was reduced to a single page. The story described a scientist on an unnamed doomed planet placing his infant son into a hastily designed spaceship and launching it toward Earth. When the spaceship lands, a passing motorist finds it and turns the child over to a local orphanage"
"The first issue of Superman, published in 1939, also featured the origin story. Max Gaines had written to Siegel and Shuster and asked them to expand the origin sequence to two pages, and to include four pages that detailed how Clark Kent became a journalist as well as a full page feature that expanded on the scientific explanation for Superman's powers. In this issue, the passing motorists are revealed to be the Kents, who leave him at the local orphan asylum but later return to adopt him. "
etc.
I guess you are talking of the circa 1995 series:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Superman#Superman:_T...
first episode was titled "The Last Son of Krypton", not "Yet another baby from Kansas".
Let's leave that as a rhetorical question having nothing to do with TFA on BofA.
Anyway it is actually documented, here is the prologue from the first episode of the "Superman (1940s cartoons)":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_(1941_film)#Prologue
“In the endless reaches of the universe, there once existed a planet known as Krypton; a planet that burned like a green star in the distant heavens. There, civilization was far advanced, and it brought forth a race of supermen, whose mental and physical powers were developed to the absolute peak of human perfection. But there came a day when giant quakes threatened to destroy Krypton forever. One of the planet’s leading scientists, sensing the approach of doom, placed his infant son in a small rocket ship and sent it hurtling in the direction of the Earth, just as Krypton exploded. The rocket sped through star-studded space, landing safely on Earth with its precious burden: Krypton’s sole survivor. A passing motorist found the uninjured child and took it to an orphanage. As the years went by and the child grew to maturity, he found himself possessed of amazing physical powers. Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, the infant of Krypton is now the Man of Steel: SUPERMAN! To best be in a position to use his amazing powers in a never-ending battle for truth and justice, Superman has assumed the disguise of Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper.”
Well, no. Decedents of though.
Nobody asked America's existing inhabitants whether they wanted European colonies. The Europeans took whatever they pleased. Nobody asked them for permission to form the United States of America either.
And that birthright citizenship of course didn't apply to those native inhabitants except - after the old white men running things started to very slowly become aware of how amazingly racist they were - retrospectively. It also didn't apply to all the black slaves they'd imported, or the cheap Chinese labour they imported for decades. Those weren't white people, and so, thanks to racism, they weren't counted as "people" at all and weren't entitled to your imagined birthright citizenship.
It's all very ugly underneath. "I'm declaring myself owner of this whole cake. Now, I'm going to give you one small slice to share between you. Don't fuss! It's my cake after all, even if you did make it".
>don't for a moment think those rules are any more legitimate just because you say so.
The only thing that makes the rules legitimate is the ability to back up those rules with force.
By the 14th Amendment in 1868? The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1802 don't mention birthright citizenship. Children born to foreigners only became citizens once their parents did.
Actually, many of the early settlements did establish good relations with nearby natives and had some degree of permission to settle there. (Sometimes before they set up their settlement, sometimes shortly afterwards). By the mid-17th century, the colonists became adroit at exploiting local conflicts, and carving extra land for themselves out of the lands of the losing side; it's not really until the early 19th century (maybe 1790s at the earliest) that there is a strong sense of superiority over natives that results in the get-out-or-else attitude.
Suppose both your parents were born in country X to country X citizens from a long line. They live in country X all their lives, until one day at say, 35, they move to country Y.
They then settle in country Y, you are conceived soon after and born there, you grow up there, you think of Y as your home.
Do you have citizenship of country X? Of country Y? Neither? Both?
The US says if X is the USA then you are NOT a citizen of the US. Your parents (who are citizens) could bring you into the country, and do the paperwork, and you would probably qualify, but not automatically. The longer you all wait, the more unlikely it becomes. Once you're 18, you are just another foreigner if you didn't already start the process.
The US also says if Y is the USA, then you ARE a citizen of the US, regardless of almost anything else.
Some countries operate almost the reverse rule. For example if X is Ireland then you're an Irish Citizen, but if Y is Ireland you probably aren't unless X was the United Kingdom or your parents had some other form of "enduring connection" to Ireland.
The only overall principle is that all UN members have agreed not to create "stateless people". That is, if there appears to be no citizenship you're entitled to, somebody has to pick up the slack and make you their problem. The US system is simple in this respect - if there's an unexplained baby born in the US, Americans just give it US citizenship. Simple. The rules against statelessness are partly because statelessness is a colossal bureaucratic problem and the UN would much rather its members stopped making it worse, but also because has an enormous human rights impact, statelessness usually means you can't get decent treatment anywhere because everybody says you aren't their problem.
That is not correct. In the majority of cases the child will be a US citizen at birth, and the parents do not have to bring the child to the US.
> Once you're 18, you are just another foreigner if you didn't already start the process.
Also incorrect. Even if no application is made until the child becomes an adult, application can still be made for derivative US citizenship.
> if Y is Ireland you probably aren't
Again incorrect, assuming by "settled in Y" you mean gained permanent residency.
The USA has both jus sanguinis (you're a citizen because your parents were) and jus soli (you're a citizen because you were born in the US). The jus soli provision is written into the Constitution to prevent Southern states from trying to deny citizenship to emancipated slaves via a grandfather-like clause; if you were born in South Carolina, you are a citizen from birth of both the US and South Carolina, and there's nothing South Carolina can do about that.
If you are born to US-citizen parents in, say, France, you are automatically a US citizen, and you can get a US passport even if you haven't been to the US for the first 30 years of your life. The rules become more complex the more tenuous the connection becomes, but the US does apply a jus sanguinis path to citizenship as well.
That's absolutely not true if your parents are married (children born in-wedlock to parents who are both US citizens, at least one of whom has ever been present in the US, acquire citizenship at birth by operation of law; there is paperwork to get a certificate acknowledging this, but it is an acknowledgement of something that happened by virtue of birth.)
A similar rule applies but with a more stringent prior residency requirement for the US Citizen parent for in-wedlock children of a US citizen and an alien that occur outside of the US.
Out-of-wedlock overseas births to at least one US parent have permissive (under certain circumstances) acquisition of citizenship rather than automatic, with different rules for US citizen fathers vs. US citizen mothers.
See, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-lega...