Stateless in EU deported in US I was wondering for a long time if a stateless person is found in the EU under 18 with no documents at all, claim to be born in the US can be deported to the US ? I searched in US laws and conventions but I can't find anything on this particular position ! If this stateless person (under 18) is born and lived in the US for is entire life is found by the EU (local police of the country like France, Germany...) authorities can be automatically or ask to be deported to the US with no documents/proof that this person is born (and normaly a US citizen), will be deported to US soil or US ambassy/consulate ? Can the US denied acces to the child to go "home" or he has to stay in the EU country (even if he don't want to stay in the EU) ? I'm at my first year in foreign laws college in France and that would really help me if someone can respond to this particular case.
Your scenario as written is impossible. If one is born in the US, then they cannot lose their citizenship before they turn 18 (and it is rather difficult to lose it accidentally; in order to lose jus soli citizenship in the US, one must &quot;intentionally revoke it&quot;; generally speaking, you have to go to a US consulate (in another country) and formally renounce your citizenship. Additionally, the US will not accept the resignation your citizenship if you do not have a different one (i.e. if accepting the resignation will render you stateless).
Constitutionally, a person is only required to be granted U.S. citizenship if they are born in the United States. Any other form of citizenship is as provided by statute. So, 8 U.S.C. § 1409 makes some people citizens who would not otherwise be citizens in its absence. In that sense, it grants citizenship. Meanwhile, 8 U.S.C. § 1409(g) supports the proposition, which is a legal fiction in some cases, that someone is a &quot;natural born citizen&quot; of the United States, and hence eligible to run for President someday, and is retroactively considered to have been a citizen in the meantime for myriad other purposes, despite the fact that in the case of an unmarried non-citizen mother and a citizen father, this right is not vested and could never come into being if the required actions aren't taken after the fact. Incidentally, this statute has been upheld against constitutional challenges. Miller v. Albright, 520 U.S. 420 (1997). So, while you would like to clearly distinguish between someone having citizenship granted and having citizenship revoked, Congress, in its wisdom, has not been so accommodating and has declined to clearly distinguish between the two interpretations. This statute is a bit like the question of Schrödinger's cat, who is indeterminately alive and dead at the same time until there is a measurement of its state, in quantum physics. A person with an unmarried non-citizen mother and a citizen father is both a U.S. citizen from birth and always has been, and has never been a citizen of the U.S., until the situation is resolved with an actual determination of the question in accordance with the requirements of the statute.
There are a couple of flaws in your hypothetical. Nobody, certainly not the state, represents the birth records as inerrant or complete. Birth records frequently have to be corrected. In fact the point of many paternity suits is to correct the official birth record. Sometimes the father, or even the mother will be listed as &quot;unknown&quot; on the birth record, so the absence of a birth record naming a person as a father is not dispositive. No government official would ever issue a legal document declaring that the man is not any child's legal father because the records don't establish that. At best they could issue a document stating that the man was not the father of record for any child in the state. Anyway, the exercise would be pointless. The only birth record the court would be interested in would be that for the child before them. None of the other birth records would be relevant to the case at hand. The court in a paternity case would ask for evidence, such as birth certificates, or statements acknowledging paternity. If the two parties continued to dispute paternity, the court would order a paternity test. Older blood typing tests sometimes left paternity ambiguous, but modern DNA paternity testing is can achieve 99.99% certainty, baring fraud or laboratory error.
Exact wording might matter here, so I looked up the law. It says "a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are physically present in Canada". Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 28(2)(a). If you visit the Canadian side of the park, you're "physically present in Canada". It would therefore appear that this would meet the requirement. I am by no means an expert in Canadian immigration law, though.
You don't need to "report" it to anyone in the US or do anything else. The US doesn't have any national registry of marriage. Any marriage or divorce conducted anywhere in the world is automatically recognized anywhere in the US (with some exceptions like polygamous marriages); the same is true in many other countries. How does the U.S. find out, for tax or insurance purposes? Obviously there's a little box that says [] Married but how would they know if I lied if I'm not registered in the United States? They don't, and don't need to. (The same is true for marriages in the US -- they don't directly "know".) You are required to use an appropriate filing status for your marriage status at the end of the year for each year's tax returns. If you don't, you are committing fraud. There are lots of things that you can intentionally lie about on tax returns, and they may not immediately "find out"; but when they do, you are in big trouble. Am I legally required to report it when I return? No. Would the Canadian/provincial government inform the U.S./state government? No.
To narrow this down to a specific country, you can read about the Syria sanctions here. Sanctions under US law are against a country, and against named individuals: there are no sanctions against &quot;Syrians&quot;. A person cannot engage in transactions in (certain) goods of Syrian origin, and you cannot invest in (businesses in) Syria. A Syrian citizen who is resident of a non-sanctioned country is not subject the the limitations that exist on Syrian citizens who are resident in Syria. However, this legal fact is not universally know, so your question does reflect an existing belief. It is entirely possible that a person who believes that there is a law of attainder against Syrian people might cause problems, but if they get advice from their legal department, they will find that also being a Syrian citizen is not an impediment to legally investing.
Would such a person be considered a "natural born citizen," for the purpose of qualifying for the presidency, from October 25th 1994? In other words, after having lived in the US for at least 14 years, could such a person run for the office of the president or the vice president? This is an unresolved issue. Some scholars believe that to be a "natural born citizen" you have to be a citizen on the day that you are born. Other scholars believe that a "natural born citizen" is someone who gains citizenship by a means other than naturalization. No binding precedents resolve the issue because the phrase "natural born citizen" is used nowhere else in the law besides qualification to be the President of the United States, and the issue can't be resolved until someone is purportedly elected because there isn't an actual case or controversy until then, and there haven't been an examples that have come up that have tested this issue. My personal guess is that the courts would make every effort to find that someone who has been elected by the citizens of the United States as President, despite the inevitable debate by the public over someone's qualification as a "natural born citizen" during the campaign, is eligible to hold that position, because to do otherwise would seem massively undemocratic. So, I suspect that retroactive citizenship at birth would be held by the courts to make someone a "natural born citizen" and eligible to serve as President. Then again, I could see this issue being resolved by the courts on basically partisan lines too with conservative judges tending to hold that a liberal candidate was ineligible for office, and liberal judges making the opposite conclusions about a liberal candidate. This is one fair reading of what happened in the case of Bush v. Gore. Would the answer depend on whether the person had been naturalized before 1994? The citizenship by naturalization is irrelevant to whether you have another grounds for claiming citizenship that was present at birth or did not arise from naturalization. On October 25th, 1994, the naturalization became redundant.
US law generally doesn't permit trials in absentia (see Can a country put a foreign criminal on trial, without catching them?), so Sheppard would have to be physically brought to the US before a trial could begin, let alone any sort of testimony or sentencing. This could happen if he voluntarily travels to the US, or if he is extradited from the UK via their legal processes for doing so. He could be represented by a lawyer at trial if he chooses, just like any other criminal defendant. If convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, he would presumably serve the sentence in a US prison just like anyone else, unless the US government decides on some other arrangement.