The Foreign Service Journal, September 2013

42 SEPTEMBER 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL significantly reduce the legal requirements for Americans living abroad to transmit citizenship to their foreign-born children. AARO, in particular, argues that American citizens should not have to satisfy any residency requirements to be able to transmit citizenship to their foreign-born children—which is essentially the same as saying that they should be able to transmit citizenship to their children indefinitely, just as Italian citizenship law now allows. As it boasts on its website, AARO was largely responsible for reducing the physical presence requirements from 10 to five years in 1986, and has been trying to do away with them completely ever since. These groups unofficially represent more than six million Americans living abroad. While they are not the most powerful force lobbying Congress, they do have clout with certain legis- lators and the State Department. The department has at times asked posts to participate in Americans Overseas Week, a week of lobbying by AARO, ACA and FAWCO in Congress to promote policies that increase the rights of citizens living overseas. While it may seem odd that State would be so supportive of such efforts, it is important to remember that Americans living overseas are one of the few natural constituencies that the State Department has. (They have more interaction with our embas- sies and diplomats than most Americans residing in the U.S.) So in a way, it makes sense that the department would want to do as much as possible to support these groups and take their concerns seriously. But up to what point? After we spent two years sending e-mail after e-mail to dissent from the department’s policy, State finally issued a cable in January 2012 (12 State 003735) that clarified its official interpretation of the difference between “residence” and “physical presence.” That should have brought its interpretation of the Child Citizenship Act into line with that of USCIS, closing the loophole. However, we are still waiting for a cable from OCS clarifying the implica- tions of this policy shift. The biggest consequence is that thousands of children who were granted citizenship under the department’s interpretation of the CCA might now be subject to its revocation. This would cause huge problems for the department and overseas posts, and could invite many lawsuits. Saved by the Hill? In the end, the department may be saved by Congress. An amendment to the immigration reform bill recently passed by the Senate (S.744: The Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act) would change the lan- guage of the CCA from “is residing in” to “is physically present in,” thereby codifying the loophole and putting the depart- ment’s interpretation of the CCA clearly in line with the letter of the law. If this bill passes Congress, it would be a good resolution for the State Department from a legal point of view. But it would represent yet another step in the abolition of physical presence requirements and the untying of U.S. customs and values from the transmission of U.S. citizenship. Doing away with physical presence requirements (or creat- ing more loopholes for those parents who can’t satisfy those requirements) is bad for many reasons. First, the shift away from physical presence requirements devalues citizenship and turns the U.S. passport into just a highly-sought VIP card. Second, and more important, there are security concerns. A U.S. passport is the most powerful travel and identity docu- ment in the entire world. Do we really want thousands of people who have never lived in the U.S., and whose parents have barely lived here (if at all) to have one? And then their children and grandchildren, too? In perpetuity? Our public diplomacy sections spend a great deal of time explaining and spreading American values to foreign audi- ences. Similarly, our political and economic sections work hard to get foreign governments to change their institutions and laws to reflect our values. As our National Security Strategy declares, American values “are our best national security asset.” We should therefore actively promote them across the world, since “nations that embrace these values for their citizens are ultimately more successful—and friendly to the United States— than those that do not.” If we no longer think it is critical to ensure that foreigners acquiring U.S. citizenship hold these values, then how can we Doing away with physical presence requirements (or making it easier to evade them) would be a bad outcome or many reasons.