Business Insider's CEO and Editor-In-Chief Henry Blodget is a Yale history graduate who previously worked on Wall Street until he was banned for life from the securities industry because of his violations of securities laws and subsequent civil trial, which ended with a $2 million fine plus a $2 million disgorgement and the permanent ban in 2003. source: wikipedia
Previously U.S. Citizens working abroad temporarily, as in military, diplomatic, or other service were considered to be permanent residents of the United States, now, under the new policy they are not. Under the new policy and definition of residency, neither these person temporarily working and living abroad, nor their children, can no longer satisfy the last two bullet points below! The new policy continues... A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen when all of the following conditions have been met on or after February 27, 2001 •The child has at least one parent, including an adoptive parent, who is a U.S. citizen by birth or through naturalization; •The child is under 18 years of age; •The child is a lawful permanent resident (LPR); •The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent. The wording is confusing, to say the least. The above situation would now only apply to tourists or short term visitors abroad who still, under the new definition of residency, maintain their official residency in the U.S. As written the "when " is probably meant to be interpreted as "when, at the time of birth..." because according to the dictionary definition of "when" the conditions are satisfied not for just a child born to tourists abroad, for also for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent(s) , who by the new definitions of residency is(are) no longer resident in the U.S., after the child and parent(s) return to the U.S. (before the childs 18th birthday) But is the child, who was born abroad, that the parent(s) later brought back into the U.S. with them, automatically an "LPR" ??? If not, even then the four conditions above can not be simultaneously satisfied, and indeed the only ones who can satisfy all of these conditions are tourists and very temporary, and quite transient visitors. It appears this is what is intended. The directives that follow deal mainly with citizen parents stationed abroad with non-citizen children, including children born abroad... and the hoops that must be jumped through to gain citizenship for the child born abroad to "non-resident" parents. Under the new definition of residency Military and diplomatic personnel are residents of the countries they are stationed in !!! Perhaps this new USCIS directive is an attempt to establish a framework from which the 19th Century Wong Kim Ark case can be challenged. If it is, it is far too clever for me to understand. In that decision, the Court ruled that a child born in the United States, to non-U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen. This legitimized the "anchor babies" that our alt right wing of American politics is adamantly resistant to. Indeed, when described in simple terms, that decision can seem rather idiotic. But I suspect there is considerable nuance involved. This new USCIS policy is bound to be tied up in the courts for years, I would think. Although some of these definitions and procedures in the directive are clearly under the purview of USCIS, it is rather obvious that the consequences of this directive impinge on constitutional issues where Judicial and Legislative purview supercedes both USCIS authority and the President's Executive prerogative.