What is the legal standard of proof required for US citizenship? Suppose a person was claiming US citizenship by virtue of being born in the US, but had some difficulty proving that they were born in the US. What would be the legal standard of proof needed to prove citizenship? Let's say they were trying to obtain a passport or avoid deportation and the matter went to court. To make the question more concrete, suppose, for example, that a child was born on a ship or aircraft that was heading to the US and the timing of the birth corresponded approximately to the point where they crossed the 12-mile territorial limit of US waters. Now there is some real uncertainty as to whether or not the birth occurred in the US. The line is not marked and everyone was too busy to keep track of the exact time and location of the birth. Obviously, different pieces of evidence could be provided. Perhaps some witnesses recall seeing land already before the child was born or noted that the aircraft was already descending. This (extreme) example would be a situation where the facts cannot be established with certainty. If only a preponderance of the evidence can be established, would the person be treated as a citizen?
The case of Sanchez v. Kerry provides evidence as to what standard of proof is required in an analogous case. Petitioner sued the Dept. of State, which makes citizenship determinations (22 CFR 50.2), alleging that he was born in Brownsville TX and submitting a birth certificate in support of the claim. The court found that the Texas certificate was not valid evidence (it was alleged to be filed falsely), and instead a competing Mexican birth certificate was valid. The court concludes as a matter of law that "the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was born in the United States", with citations (Bustamante-Barrera, 447 F.3d 388, 394 (5th Cir. 2006); Reyes v. Neely, 264 F.2d 673, 674-75 (5th Cir. 1959); Tijerina v. Brownell, 141 F. Supp. 266, 270 (S.D. Tex. 1956); Patel v. Rice, 403 F. Supp. 2d 560, 562 (N.D. Tex. 2005). The district court lays out the comparative evidence pretty clearly, so that you can see how the courts would probably rule (the case was upheld on appeal). The decision would be based on a totality of evidence, and one would have to go beyond the one fact that distinguishes this case from others. In Sanchez there was substantial counter-evidence. In the present case, other facts would be relevant, such as whether a birth certificate had been filed in a timely manner in some state, whether there was a competing birth certificate from another country. Testimony from competent witnesses would be germane, and could easily devolve into a series of competing technical claims (do people on a plane really know where they are relative to the ground?).
No It is not a fundamental human right to be able to become a resident of Denmark. Every country has the right to decide who is and who is not a resident and what criteria need to be satisfied. Having a residence is usually a pretty fundamental criterion for being a resident. At the same time, most countries have laws that state what areas and types of structures can be used as residences. There may be zoning requirements and building codes. You may argue that you should be able to decide what you will accept as your living quarters but that presumes, wrongly, that your decision doesn’t affect other people. As a simple counter example, emergency services might need to enter your “dwelling” and it must be, among other things, structurally sound enough for them to do so safely. So given that becoming a resident of Denmark is not a fundamental human right stated anywhere, Denmark can decide who is and is not. Of course, you can lie and say you have a residence when you don’t but lying to the government in order to obtain something you are not actually entitled to is likely to solve all your Danish residence problems; they’ll deport you.
Yes. A domestic passport is sufficient photo ID for any purpose (other than driving or establishing state residency) and is expressly authorized as sufficient ID for employment on a form I-9 and for banking "know your customer" rules. Indeed, for some purposes, even an expired passport is sufficient ID as it establishes citizenship.
The law was changed several times, and different versions apply to different age groups because certain rules were not changed retroactively. The page you link describes the situation for children born after the year 2000. My advice: citizenship is such a serious matter that you should consult a specialized lawyer, not a random crowd on the web.
I haven't found a recent case like this where it constitutes evidence. Military members didn't have an express right to remain silent until somewhere in the 1950s, so one chances are there might be cases prior to that point. The present right is codified in 10 U.S.C. 831, which is Article 31 of the UCMJ. That said, there is certainly a well documented adverse inference effect. While jurors aren't supposed to take the silence into account (e.g. when a defendant elects not to testify or exercises a right against self-incrimination), it's a difficult thing to do, practically speaking.
Short answer: You find a country who is willing to recognize you as stateless, and issue you travel papers. At that point you can enter the U.S. by applying for a visa. The USA really does not want to create stateless people. They are laboring diplomatically to eradicate statelessness. As such, the State Department will want to see that you are secure in another country's citizenship before they will repudiate your US citizenship. Otherwise, they are very reluctant. The State Department will insist you do the repudiation in a foreign country at a US embassy. If you want to become stateless with your feet in the United States, you'll likely have a legal fight on your hands. Regardless, it will cost you $2300 in filing fees (plus, all your back taxes) :) At that point, you become the problem of the foreign country. You aren't anyone to the USA, and you have to apply for a visa just like anyone else. When a stated person enters the US, immigration's pivotal concern is whether you'll leave the US consistent with the terms of your visa, i.e. return to your country of citizenship. Being stateless increases this risk, and being a USA expat increases that risk further, since you are so familiar and comfortable in the US. If you found yourself in the kind of piccadillo that would qualify a foreigner for refugee or asylum status, the US would consider it just the same as others, since those statuses include right of residency. Some countries manufacture stateless people, e.g. Syria will not grant citizenship to a non-Muslim born there.
Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment makes a person born on U.S. soil a U.S. citizen at the moment of birth. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. This is not a &quot;loophole,&quot; because it is exactly what the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment were trying to achieve. There are narrow exceptions because of the &quot;subject to the jurisdiction thereof&quot; clause: The children of an ambassador are held to be subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince. ... Thus the children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens. Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour, 28 U.S. 99, 155-56 (1830).
Any country can certainly decide who it should grant citizenship status to. There is no international rule that I know of requiring that the recipient be currently a resident of the country granting citizenship. Any country may issue passports to its citizens.