Let's just say their parents were put in prison for some reason, do they try to find a relative in the states or in the home country first? But what if the parents refuse to cooperate and give names of relatives? Does the child then become a citizen due to these circumstances or are they still an illegal?
2007-11-06 13:55:36 · 9 answers · asked by Dog Tricks 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Bell Book and candle...They don't tell us squat. We're only the caregivers with no brains. LOL
2007-11-06 14:14:30 · update #1
A child of an illegal who was born in the US is a citizen, and would presumably go into foster care. A child of an illegal born outside the US is not, and would be the responsibility of his own government, though he'd likely end up in foster care for a time, while deportation procedings were underway. Once returned to his homeland, he would presumably go into whatever system was in place there, if he had no relatives (or no known relatives).
2007-11-06 14:11:06 · answer #1 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
First other relatives would be sought out as an option. I'm assuming the child is an illegal so, unless adopted by citizens of the U.S., I don't see how simply being a foster child would automatically grant citizenship. Now, if the parents were stripped of their parental rights and the child became a ward of that state, in that case I would assume the process would begin to legalize that child. But, should'nt you be able to tell me that better than I could tell you? I've never been a foster parent.
Edit: Ok, well, here in CA, I know that a child must become a ward of the state first or the parents permission is needed for adoption. Either the parent has to surrender the rights or they are taken, then the child will be very willing adopted out by the state. It seems that under those circumstances, the process to become a citizen would go pretty quick and smooth so the state could save $..lol, sounds cold but, foster kids cost the state some bucks each year.
2007-11-06 14:08:27 · answer #2 · answered by GoodJuJu2U 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The status of the child doesn't change in relation to the parents conditions. It is always preferrable to place children with family members. If that is an option, it is first choice. However, I will say that it is often simply not possible. In many cases, if the bio-mom is a mess, it is most likely because she was raised by parents that also are not necessarily competent, and, usually have siblings of the same ilk. Therefore, it is unfortunate but very common that family members are simply not desirable placement choices for the children. Of course, there are exceptions, and, when the family member CAN meet the needs of the child, they get preference over "the system". There are issues, though, and, oftentimes if the abuse to the child is substantial it is necessary to place the child with strangers. Many times have we placed a child with a family member only to find out that the family member has "given" that child back to the abusive parent. That is why some parents have restraining orders placed on them from their children.
As far as location, the primary objective is reunification of the family. We are on a time limit to get this family "healthy", or, we have to show just cause as to why a TPR (termination of parental rights) should commence. Therefore, the child needs to be within x miles of the bio-parents in order for the "reunification" to even be attempted. We are on an 18 month rule here in Wisconsin, though, there are variables. After 18 months if the child is still in foster care (and is of a young enough age - usually under 5), we legally have to prepare documentation as to why the reunification has not happened, or, why we have not begun a TPR.
Sorry for the very long answer, Dog Tricks, but, no. Kids stay here in community. Their status does not change regardless of who is their caregiver (parents or the state), parents rarely don't cooperate (anyone that knows the system knows the farther "away" the kids go, the harder it is to get them back)
2007-11-06 14:43:17 · answer #3 · answered by Amanda h 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The criminal status of the parents does not in any way alter the childs citizenship. This child should be sent back to the parents home country to become a ward of that countries government.
Think about it another way so that you can understand the logic. If we granted citizenship to people in that situation then virtually every illegal with a child would want to be caught breaking laws BESIDES the immigration laws they already have no respect for. Their child would get citizenship status and thus become an anchor for the parents continual residence here even though they are more of a criminal then the normal criminal illegal alien.
2007-11-06 13:59:35 · answer #4 · answered by youarewrongbobisright 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
The question would largely depend on whether the child was born in the US. If the child was born in the US, then it is a citizen - regardless of it's parent's status - and it could not be deported.
Beyond that, I don't know how the situation would be handled.
2007-11-06 14:00:07 · answer #5 · answered by Justin H 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I would say if the parents are in jail the children should be sent to their home country and their government can set up care for them if they have no known relatives there. Not to sound cold but we shouldn't have to foot the bill for them,we have our own children to support.
2007-11-06 14:45:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the baby was born in the U.S., then it would go into an American foster care. If the baby was illegal, they would send it home. Remember that Cuban baby that had to go home, Elian?
2007-11-06 14:10:36 · answer #7 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The child if it is also a illegal, will be in foster care until they are 18 and then deported
2007-11-06 14:02:31 · answer #8 · answered by saywhat 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
If the baby is born in the United States, it is a citizen (as much as a baby can be).
2007-11-06 13:58:13 · answer #9 · answered by Me 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋