Does 8 USC &#167;1409(a) grant citizenship or take away citizenship? If a person is born outside the US to a US citizen father and a non-US national mother, and the parents are not married to each other, then there are certain special requirements in order for the child to be a US citizen. Under 8 USC §1409(a)(3), one of the requirements is that the father must agree in writing to provide financial support for the child until they reach the age of 18. If all the conditions of 8 USC §1409(a) are met, then 8 USC §1401(g) applies &quot;as of the date of birth&quot; of the person, i.e., they are considered a US citizen from birth. Thus, the person's citizenship is conditional upon a particular act that must be performed before they reach the age of 18. As long as the father has written down somewhere, prior to the child's 18th birthday, that they agree to support the child financially until the age of 18 (or even just signed such an agreement written by someone else), this condition is fulfilled and the child is a citizen if all other conditions are met. If the child is over the age of 18 but has such a document in their possession that is dated before their 18th birthday, they can use it to prove that the condition was met and that they are a US citizen. However, if by the time the child turns 18 the father is still alive but has never made such a written agreement, then the child is not a US citizen. There are two ways to interpret the law: It grants citizenship. If, at some point between the child's birth and the child's 18th birthday, all the conditions of 8 USC §1409(a) are fulfilled, then the law grants citizenship to such child, and this grant is retroactive to their birth. (This interpretation raises the constitutional question of whether such a citizen would be eligible for the presidency.) It takes away citizenship. The child is born a citizen, but if the child reaches the age of 18 and the conditions have not been met, their citizenship is taken away by operation of law. It is constitutional for Congress to provide for the loss of citizenship of individuals who were born outside the US and not naturalized in the US. See Rogers v. Bellei. However, this interpretation seems less likely to me. I would normally think that if Congress had intended to write a law that takes away citizenship, they would be a bit more explicit about it. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that a person who is still under the age of 18 and for whom the condition still could be met in the future could claim current US citizenship in e.g. removal proceedings. Which interpretation is correct?
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.
The State Department is mischaracterizing the law, which requires only that the US citizen &quot;bear&quot; a valid US passport, not that the US citizen &quot;use&quot; the passport. This law, 8 USC 1185(b), used to have a fairly stiff penalty, and it used to apply only in time of war. When the wartime element was removed in 1978, so was the penalty. It now reads Except as otherwise provided by the President and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may authorize and prescribe, it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a valid United States passport. If a US citizen attempts to leave the US without a valid US passport, there is a very small chance that the departure could be prevented by a CBP officer, but in the normal course of affairs the traveler would not even encounter a CBP officer, so the possibility is very remote indeed. There is nothing, however, that prevents a US citizen who also holds a passport issued by another country from using the other passport while also carrying a valid US passport. See also What is the penalty for US citizens entering/leaving the US on a foreign passport? at Travel and Can someone be penalized for an &quot;unlawful&quot; act if no penalty is specified? on this site.
The law doesn’t “defines a minor as a legal person below (some age)” It defines it as a natural person below (some age).
As Mark's answer indicates, you are evidently thinking of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. "Public acts" being laws, it may seem at first glance that states must fully respect the laws of other states. But the interpretation of this clause by the courts is rather different, and has evolved a bit over time. The short of the (modern) matter is that it mostly applies to matters concerning the judiciary. SCOTUS has recognized a "public policy exception" to the clause, which limits the ability of the clause to force a state to abide by laws which are in conflict with their own (for the most part: they don't have to). Driving privileges, and more generally who is licensed to do what (doctors, hunting, concealed carry, etc.), within a state falls under that public policy exception. So Texas does not have to obey New Hampshire's laws concerning the legal privilege to drive. As a basic sanity test, if this were not the case, then why wouldn't everybody in Texas not simply bounce off to New Hampshire for a summer to get their license there and then return to Texas and never bother with insurance? It entirely undercuts the state's sovereignty and ability to set their own laws if any other state can so easily create loopholes around them. Moreover, despite what the name might suggest, a "driver's license" is more a certification that you have the requisite skills, physical performance (passing an eye test), and knowledge to drive safely and in accordance with that state's traffic laws. It certainly makes sense for a state to require you to demonstrate at least that much, but they may also impose additional requirements. A requirement for insurance demonstrates your ability to handle financial liabilities that may reasonably result from your driving. All states currently accept a valid out-of-state license in the above sense: that you are certified to have the requisite skills, that it is valid proof of age, etc. Though if you become a permanent resident there they may require you to take new tests. However to legally drive in any particular state you must not only have such certification (a driver's license) but also satisfy any other conditions, such as age requirements and insurance requirements. As an aside, such state-by-state variations as to who is licensed to do what are in fact quite common, especially across history, even on very prominent issues. But even nationwide resolutions of those issues via SCOTUS have never, to my knowledge, utilized the Full Faith and Credit clause to do so. And, really, how could they? By saying since some state could force all other states to do X via the clause, then X must be a constitutional requirement? Or that any one state could unilaterally dictate laws in all other states? Madness! For one example, anti-miscegenation laws, which outlawed (certain) interracial marriages, were quite common until 1967, when SCOTUS struck them all down using the 14th amendment. More recently, gay marriage was forced to be recognized in all states, also via the 14th amendment. In both cases, before those SCOTUS rulings, the courts had generally recognized that the Full Faith and Credit clause did not compel the state to recognize (out-of-state) marriages it did not want to recognize. These both fell under the public policy exception.
The question mischaracterizes Texas law. Texas allows a common law marriage to be formally acknowledged in a document signed by the parties, for bureaucratic convenience and to end uncertainty. As clarified in the comments: this procedure isn't for couples who are &quot;otherwise unmarried&quot;, but for those who are already married under common law (by living together as spouses, etc). And the date presumably can't actually be any date they choose, but only within the time period of their common-law marriage. In Texas, there is a common law marriage (per the link above) when you and your partner: are not already married, informally or formally, to anyone else at the time the marriage was created, AND both you and your partner were at least 18 years of age when the marriage was created; and you agreed to be married, AND afterward, lived in Texas as a married couple, and represented to others that you are married (“holding out” to others). These requirements, or some close variant of them, are typical of almost all common law marriage states. Common law marriages may be formed in the following U.S. states: Colorado: Common law marriage contracted on or after Sept. 1, 2006, is valid if, at the time the marriage was entered into, both parties are 18 years or older, and the marriage is not prohibited by other law (Colo. Stat. §14-2-109.5) Iowa: Common law marriage for purposes of the Support of Dependents Chapter (Iowa Code §252A.3) Otherwise it is not explicitly prohibited (Iowa Code §595.1A) Kansas: Common law marriage will be recognized if the parties are 18 or older and for purposes of the Divorce and Maintenance Article, proof of common law marriage is allowed as evidence of marriage of the parties (Kan. Stat. §23-2502; Kan. Stat. §23-2714) Montana: Not strictly prohibited, they are not invalidated by the Marriage Chapter (Mont. Stat. §40-1-403) New Hampshire: Common Law Marriage: &quot;persons cohabiting and acknowledging each other as husband and wife, and generally reputed to be such, for the period of 3 years, and until the decease of one of them, shall thereafter be deemed to have been legally married.&quot; (N.H. Stat. §457:39) South Carolina: allows for marriages without a valid license (S.C. Stat. §20-1-360) Texas: Common Law Marriage in specific circumstances (Tex. Family Law §1.101; Tex. Family Law §2.401-2.402) Utah: Utah Stat. §30-1-4.5 While Texas provides a standard form for doing so, affidavits from each spouse, possibly filed in public real property records where the parties reside, would have the same effect. The use of a standardized safe harbor state approved form for doing this is a Texas-specific innovation. Common law marriage derives from English law, although it has since been abolished in England. The practice of formally documenting events and relationships that arise by operation of law with a signed instrument is a long standing one in all sorts of legal contexts. The Texas standard form Declaration would be prima facie evidence of the facts stated in it about the common law marriage of the parties, that would be hard to rebut. But, if someone had a legitimate reason to question whether they were actually married on the date stated (e.g. to overcome a claim of spousal confidential communications privilege) this could be overcome with evidence offered in an evidentiary hearing to the contrary (e.g. proof that the couple didn't meet until two years after the date recited).
I don't know about that particular case, but you are basically right: In Switzerland, if you want to apply for citizenship, you apply for it in the municipality first. Everybody having the citizenship of the municipality has the swiss citizenship as well. In theory, the canton and the state also have something to say, but that's irrelevant for most applications. This has historic reasons, but going into the details is beyond the scope of this question. Fact is, that every municipality has its own rules, about when and how applications are handled. This has been unified a bit in recent years, but some things still differ. That is for instance, how many years you need to have lived there or who decides your application. There were municipalities (actually most) where the final decision was made using a public vote. This practice was declared illegal by the federal court some years ago, because becoming a citizen is a formal governmental act, and as such a reason needs to be given for turning an application down. This is inherently impossible with a vote. Since that law decision, most municipalities have shifted the responsibility to a committee for citizenship applications. The public can still bring in arguments, but they need to be justified (ie. if somebody knows about the applicant being a wanted criminal somewhere). Consequently, you can now call for a court to check whether the given reasoning is correct and just, if you are turned down.
One official form of ID should be enough. Two pieces of ID is more than most people ever carry. And not selling to you because you’re black would be illegal discrimination. But that would be hard to prove. The most likely explanation is stupidity. Or lack of training. Might be an employee who is already deep into overtime, or just not mentally present. Some people go on auto-pilot and if you showed them an age card that isn’t accepted that’s fixed in their brain. Or maybe the passport photo doesn’t look like you. If it is an unusual form of ID like a 100% valid Japanese driving license, or a damaged passport, or a library card, those might be reasonably rejected. The best course of action would be to ask for the manager. The manager should either be able to give you a sensible reason why your passport is not acceptable, or give you the goods. And if not, your case for illegal discrimination is much stronger if a supposedly competent manager refuses to serve you. (Reading the other answer: Obviously if you are too young to buy the item, which is not true in your case, then showing 100 legal IDs wouldn't get you the item. And if you look so young that a reasonable person would think it's more likely that your ID is an excellent forgery than you being 18, they could deny the sale).
If an F-1 student in the US, gets married with a US citizen, how can he protect his money if a divorce happened in the future? Specifically if he has a plan to establish a company and run a business after he graduated, how can he keep all the rights and money/stuck/profit he will earn from his company and won't share it after a probable divorce? Should they wright something like &quot;we promise we won't have any claims about each other's money after the divorce&quot; before they get married? A prenuptial agreement is possible, and only an idiot or fool would draft one himself. An agreement drafted without legal representation would be highly likely to be invalidated in an effort to enforce it in the event of a divorce. Generally, both parties should have separate counsel. This must be accompanied by full financial disclosure by both parties, at least an opportunity to confer with legal counsel providing full informed consent regarding the rights given up in the agreement, and no undue pressure to sign it on the eve of a wedding. It cannot impact child support or child custody. It must also not be unconscionable to either spouse, either at the time it is executed or at the time of a divorce. If the company makes millions of dollars over the course of a ten year marriage, a court would not enforce the agreement according to those terms. In the case of an immigrant marrying a U.S. citizen, having a prenuptial agreement is usually a significant barrier to obtaining a spousal visa, which may be the only visa available after the marriage, on the grounds that this is considered a &quot;yellow flag&quot; that the marriage may actually be a sham for citizenship purposes only. A typical immigration officer who would read a post like this one or hearing an explanation for its purpose in an interview in those words would seriously consider denying a spousal visa or U.S. citizenship on the ground that the marriage is a fraud. The notion of a &quot;probable divorce&quot; in particular would almost certainly doom visa approval or a citizenship application, and would also, at the margins, make it less likely that it would be enforced at all. This is particularly true in the event of the very one-sided agreement proposed when you have a young couple that doesn't have established assets and children from prior marriages, or a pre-existing substantial amount of inherited wealth. Why else would a spouse agree to it?