Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Another tightening of
Speaker 1: immigration rules from the Trump administration, specifically US Citizenship and
Speaker 1: Immigration Services, says a small number of US military personnel
Speaker 1: and government employees serving overseas will no longer be automatically
Speaker 1: granted citizenship for children they've adopted while abroad. Bloomberg News
Speaker 1: investigative reporter Polly Moss ends has the unenviable task now
Speaker 1: of trying to make sense out of some very convol
Speaker 1: hooded law here, Polly, welcome. They're calling this, they're they're
Speaker 1: they're calling this a policy manual update. I think this,
Speaker 1: like a lot of other stories involving Donald Trump, comes
Speaker 1: down to this question, can he do this? Well? He can,
Speaker 1: as for why he's doing it, and the confusion that's
Speaker 1: led as a result of doing this. You know, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of murkiness there, but legally speaking, yes, this
Speaker 1: can be done, and this is really something that's in
Speaker 1: between um U, s c I S, which is the
Speaker 1: immigration authority and the federal government as far as DHS goes.
Speaker 1: But the reality is, of course he can do it,
Speaker 1: but now he has to live with sort of the
Speaker 1: backlash of that, we're saying from the military community. Okay,
Speaker 1: so walk us through this a little bit. What was
Speaker 1: the previous policy and what is changing? So the actual
Speaker 1: thing that's changing is quite narrow. In fact, it's estimated
Speaker 1: to impact only twenty to twenty five individuals annually. And
Speaker 1: what's changing is that adopted children and existing children of
Speaker 1: folks stationed overseas or working overseas for the American government
Speaker 1: that become naturalized would now have to go through an
Speaker 1: additional application process. In the past, they would have become
Speaker 1: citizens automatically, and now there's this extra step. So despite
Speaker 1: impacting a small group of people, you know, no one
Speaker 1: likes to do government paperwork, and it's not known for
Speaker 1: being the easiest, fastest, or cheapest process, and they will
Speaker 1: have to go through that. Yeah, do we know how
Speaker 1: expensive this this might be? Well, I think a lot
Speaker 1: of that is still up in the air. You know,
Speaker 1: we do know how expensive some of the forms involved are.
Speaker 1: There's one form that's about six D, another form that's
Speaker 1: about But the reality is here that we still have
Speaker 1: to see exactly how this comes out, and we also
Speaker 1: have to see if there's going to be any kind of,
Speaker 1: you know, extra funding given to folks impact and given
Speaker 1: it is such a small group, perhaps that would be
Speaker 1: something that would be explored, or perhaps there would be
Speaker 1: an application process that's of a lower cost that could
Speaker 1: be explored. I think a lot of things are still
Speaker 1: going to be determined. Given sort of how this rollout
Speaker 1: was a bit bungled, I was kind of surprised to
Speaker 1: read this in the story that throughout American history, the
Speaker 1: residency requi wiremants to pass on citizenship to children have shifted.
Speaker 1: They have. Yeah, I think just like with any immigration policy,
Speaker 1: these things will always shift. And because citizenship is not
Speaker 1: codified very harshly in the Constitution, it's not something that
Speaker 1: we know exactly how we're going to define. It is
Speaker 1: something that's been viewed as malleable by different governments, and
Speaker 1: that's why we've seen changes like that. But we do
Speaker 1: know that if you're born to American parents, you're a citizen.
Speaker 1: Though right yes, if you are born to American parents,
Speaker 1: you are a citizen. But say if you are adopted
Speaker 1: to American parents who are living abroad stationed abroad, you know,
Speaker 1: one could argue that that child is the exact same child.
Speaker 1: It's their child, a child that they wanted, right should
Speaker 1: That's sort of why a lot of the immigration groups
Speaker 1: are coming down on this, is that we shouldn't define
Speaker 1: somebody's legal status based on such little things. That's really
Speaker 1: some of the criticism that we're seeing. But the perception
Speaker 1: here is that this is yet another of those Paula
Speaker 1: see changes that reflects a larger push from the Trump
Speaker 1: administration to make legal immigration more difficult. Now, what U
Speaker 1: s c i s Has said is that they're basically
Speaker 1: working to uniform the process throughout all parts of the government,
Speaker 1: to make it sort of exactly the same all throughout.
Speaker 1: But of course that's certainly the perception that comes off,
Speaker 1: especially if you look at some of the other things
Speaker 1: that have happened with veterans. Earlier this year, there were
Speaker 1: reports of veterans being deported. There were also reports of
Speaker 1: those active service members who are currently serving having to
Speaker 1: go through lengthier and more complicated ways to become naturalized citizens.
Speaker 1: So I think when you look at it in the
Speaker 1: context of that, there's certainly an argument to be made
Speaker 1: that this is sort of the third step that we've
Speaker 1: seen with this military community and the question of citizenship. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and we've we've heard the military community basically rise up
Speaker 1: and say this is a gratuitous slap at military members.
Speaker 1: Do we know if Congress plans to weigh in on
Speaker 1: this at all? Well, according to some of our colleagues
Speaker 1: on their in d C, Congress is a little bit confused,
Speaker 1: and quite frankly, I can't blame them. It is incredibly
Speaker 1: confusing our colleagues and I we attempted to make sense
Speaker 1: of this throughout four hours talking to nearly a dozen
Speaker 1: immigration attorneys. So I can't blame Congress if they didn't
Speaker 1: have a big heads up on this, for not understanding
Speaker 1: it fully. I will say the Modern Military Association has
Speaker 1: asked Congress to take action, So there are advocacy groups
Speaker 1: that are hoping that Congress will do something here. I
Speaker 1: have to admit that I've had trouble getting past the
Speaker 1: part where you said this affects twenty people, why bother?
Speaker 1: That's a good question. So they're saying this is basically
Speaker 1: a standardization. And part of the reasons of why to
Speaker 1: bother is because it does impact such a small group
Speaker 1: of people who they could theoretically kind of help along
Speaker 1: this road. Um. But then there is also the question
Speaker 1: of why bother at all? You know, it's it isn't
Speaker 1: like something that was a very large broken system. That's
Speaker 1: certainly not the argument that was made by U. S
Speaker 1: c I S. And remind me again how this takes effect.
Speaker 1: When it takes effect, it will not take effect for
Speaker 1: some months, and it will not take effect retroactively. So
Speaker 1: folks who are already in this process are folks who
Speaker 1: obviously already have this kind of citizenship. They should not
Speaker 1: worry about this. This is a forward looking change. And
Speaker 1: is the Trump administration responding at all to this criticism
Speaker 1: from the military community, Not thus far. But you know,
Speaker 1: we will see what happens, and we'll also see where
Speaker 1: this fits into the news cycle. If there is one
Speaker 1: very high profile case of somebody's child not being able
Speaker 1: to gain citizenship, then I think we might, you know,
Speaker 1: see more of a backlash, We might see more of
Speaker 1: a response. Our thanks to Bloomberg News investigative reporter pollmus Ends,
Speaker 1: who will be continuing to follow this story for us.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg URDA did lad did da