Acronyms will eventually be a casualty

[PatatiPatatras]

Reading up on https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66860266.

I couldn't help but think, you mean homosexuality is being targeted. It feels like everything else is hanging on to homosexuality because ???

It started out as cool to look out for each other and for everyone to be lumped together. Now it feels like you can't state when something specifically targets homosexuals.

The article does use the term same sex but it just feels tagged on. Something about this feels demeaning.

I disagree that it is that normal, sorry.

Most countries will grant citizenship to children of their citizens who are born abroad, although there may well be a limitation on the number of generations who can benefit. For example, my children were born in France and they are British by descent. They won't be able to pass on British citizenship to their own children unless they are living in the UK when their children are born. If they had been born in the UK they would have had both British and French citizenship with no strings attached because France does not have the same requirement.

The scenario you are talking about, where the child is born in a country neither of their parents are citizens of and neither parent is able to pass on their own citizenship is incredibly rare. In that situation they would most likely get citizenship of the country where they were born and the parents' residence rights may well be strengthened on the basis that they are now the parents of a minor citizen.

The babies under discussion here have US citizenship, which is of limited use to them given that their parents are Italian, they are growing up in Italy, and the person the Italian government considers to be their mother is someone they do not know and who has zero intention of bringing them up because that wasn't the deal.

They are not guaranteed to get Italian citizenship in the future and so they do run the risk of being told to leave the country at the age of 18 because they are no longer considered the minor children of an Italian parent.

There was a girl in the UK who had something similar happen to her. Her mother was British by descent, she was born abroad and then went to live in the UK with her British mother as a baby. At 18 she was informed she no longer had the right to live in the UK and asked to leave, despite having lived there all her life and being the child of a British citizen.

That might sound extreme but these things can and do happen. And if the Italian government swears that it wouldn't let that happen to the children born to surrogates abroad, there is really no reason for them not to recognise these children as Italian citizens.

But I can see that my concern for these children is falling on deaf ears. At least one person in this thread has suggested that it might be reasonable to imprison the parents and take the children into care. And if you're going to make suggestions like that, I'm not going to believe you when you say you are motivated by the desire to protect these children. If your policy is aimed at protecting these children, it shouldn't make things worse for them than if you turned a blind eye.

I don't know what the solution to the international commercial surrogacy industry is. I really don't. But this isn't it. And taking it out on the children themselves is going to be the quickest way to convince people who don't know where they stand on this issue that opposition to surrogacy is grounded in homophobia and religious conservatism rather than any genuine desire to protect women and children.

Buying and selling humans is wrong.
No surrogacy arrangement is made for the benefit of the child. It is made for the benefit of the purchasers, to the detriment of the child and its mother.
No surrogacy purchaser can be a fit parent fundamentally.
Those using non-purchase ethical surrogacy arrangements done without any payment with strict oversight to make sure it's not used as a means of exploitating poorer women may (rarely) qualify as ok but most countries' laws fall well short of anything approaching a reasonable level of ethics.

A ban on surrogacy is good and the idea that it means that any child "doesn't exist" is ridiculous. The children exist but are not property and cannot be bought. Being bought by rich people isn't a happier outcome than being treated as a valid human being who isn't for sale.

Yes they should. Commercial surrogacy is a filthy business. It's trading in human flesh. It must end.

A woman on radio 4 this morning spoke about how 'universal crime' was usually save for crimes such as people trafficking.

She was so close to understanding the problem. But not quite there.

This isn't about same sex couples v het couples. It's about rich people 'commissioning' a baby from poorer women.

There was a girl in the UK who had something similar happen to her. Her mother was British by descent, she was born abroad and then went to live in the UK with her British mother as a baby. At 18 she was informed she no longer had the right to live in the UK and asked to leave, despite having lived there all her life and being the child of a British citizen.

Yes, this sort of thing happens. It happens in Australia too. But in these circumstances the problem for the child as an adult could have been avoided if the parent had actually checked what the law was and sorted it out at the time of birth. In these circumstances the defence is ignorance, “I just thought she’d be British!” but in surrogacy they know beforehand and should just get on with sorting it out.

I will ask again: is your solution to this problem to award citizenship to any child of the country they’re living in regardless of the circumstance of how they got there?

You are right, of course. But some LGBT people are very adept at making everything about themselves and they don't care who else's rights they trample on. You only have to look at Trans campaigns.

Even automatic citizenship has rules. You don't notify in a given time frame and you lose it.
Some countries do not give it automatically and the babies need to be registered even if it's a sure fire approval.
Some are definitely not that straight forward.

Whether you agree or not, for those of us who have to stay on top of immigration laws this is pretty standard stuff.
And whether you agree or not my children still don't have their father's nationality without the paperwork.

Not sure what you are arguing about here. For me and other people in my position, having to do a baby's paperwork in timely manner is normal.

If your point is that you don't have to do it so it's demeaning for the people in the article then fine. But by my standards, what they've been asked to do is not a punishment. It's just different from what you know.

No, but if the parent raising them is a citizen of that country and they have no real connection to the country they are a citizen of then I would.

That's just pure wishful thinking of how immigration rules work...

And how would you determine this? How would you determine who is a parent and what constitutes a parent? And raising them? And no connection to the country they were born (other than the mother they were removed from)?

There has to be a process. So how is this different to the process they’re required to go through now?

How can you determine that a male hasn’t just gone to a country and stolen himself a baby?

Because there is a birth certificate listing him as the child's father.

The birth certificate of another country.

So he can go through the process of registering the child for citizenship then can’t he? Unless he doesn’t want to bother because it’s time consuming, expensive and “humiliating”.

And maybe that process would help ensure it isn’t a case of child abduction, as happens regularly. How are you planning on determining the child is not meant to be with its mother in the country whose birth the baby was registered?

With great difficulty, if you have made going abroad for surrogacy a criminal offence.

But even without surrogacy, how do you determine that a man hasn’t acrimoniously split from his partner, the mother of his child and abducted the child and returned to his home country, if there are no checks or balances when getting citizenship for a baby born overseas?

Child abduction is a separate issue from the child's entitlement to citizenship.

What criminalising this will do is incentivise people to lie about the circumstances of their child's birth.

No it’s not a separate issue. For a child born overseas to a citizen of a country, there needs to be some process in that country to determine whether the child is eligible to become a citizen of the person claiming to be its parent. This process should be rigorous and thorough and not waved away because the parents may have breached the laws because you think it’s “mean” to the child.

What criminalising this should do is make people stop and think before they lie about the circumstances of a child’s birth because of what the outcomes will be. If they don’t, they are criminals.

You talk about this will incentivise people to lie, but in your proposed system there wouldn’t be any requirement to determine the truth!

You have a baby?

Yes.

Is it yours?

Yes. Do you want to check?

No, that’s fine, we trust you, we don’t want to inconvenience you with time or money so here’s a citizenship certificate for that baby you’ve come home from overseas with!

You don’t see any issue with this?!

Child abduction is the "one too many" that governs the rules concerning children and immigration...
It would put children at significant harm to just ignore the provenance of the document presented...

What criminalising this should do is make people stop and think before they lie about the circumstances of a child’s birth because of what the outcomes will be. If they don’t, they are criminals.

No, this doesn't make sense. Because if going abroad for surrogacy is illegal and same sex couples aren't allowed to adopt children in Italy, a gay man who returns to Italy with his child born via surrogacy is not going to be able to present the surrogacy contract to prove that he is the child's only legal guardian and that he hasn't abducted the child.

You are naive if you think criminalising this will stop it from happening. What it will mean is that people who are determined to do it will become embroiled in a web of lies to explain where their child has come from.

No, this doesn't make sense. Because if going abroad for surrogacy is illegal and same sex couples aren't allowed to adopt children in Italy, a gay man who returns to Italy with his child born via surrogacy is not going to be able to present the surrogacy contract to prove that he is the child's only legal guardian and that he hasn't abducted the child.

If he is the child’s biological father he can prove that. If he’s not he has abducted or trafficked a child who has been given to him by a random woman.

I’ll ask again, do you not foresee any issues with your system of giving automatic citizenship on people’s say so?

You are naive if you think criminalising this will stop it from happening. What it will mean is that people who are determined to do it will become embroiled in a web of lies to explain where their child has come from.

Well a lot of surrogacy is like that anyway.

So you’re saying there’s no point trying to ban surrogacy completely because people will do it anyway? Even though countries have successfully banned surrogacy?

These are laws designed to discourage people from undertaking surrogacy because to do so will put them on the wrong side of the law and make them criminals. Like every other law that has ever existed. Why bother with any, eh?

You said it yourself, it's not enough to prove that he is the child's biological father, especially if the birth certificate shows that the child was born abroad.

How does a man who has done this prove that (a) he is the child's biological father, and (b) that he hasn't abducted the child, without producing a surrogacy contract which shows that he committed a crime by going abroad to have a child via a surrogate?

I don't see how he can. This won't stop people using surrogates, it will just mean they go to greater extremes to cover their tracks and children will slip through the cracks of society.

It's not the way to tackle the surrogacy industry. You need to change public opinion for that. And like it or not, many people think using a surrogate is a perfectly acceptable way for a gay couple to have a child (there has been no widespread condemnation of Tom Daley, for example).

This just looks like a right wing government wanting to criminalise gay people for having children and it is more likely to make people support the right to use a surrogate than to oppose it.

How does a man who has done this prove that (a) he is the child's biological father, and (b) that he hasn't abducted the child, without producing a surrogacy contract which shows that he committed a crime by going abroad to have a child via a surrogate?

I don't see how he can. This won't stop people using surrogates, it will just mean they go to greater extremes to cover their tracks and children will slip through the cracks of society.

Well as has been pointed out, there exists a process by which he can apply at the moment, and in the future he has a choice: don’t go abroad to get yourself a baby or do and make life hell for yourself by becoming a criminal. So because people will still choose option b we should have no laws in place? And these are wealthy men usually who see a child as an accessory so I think it’s unlikely they’ll want to cover their tracks.

I’ll ask for a 3rd time: you don’t foresee any issue with your system of automatic citizenship for babies based on people’s say so? Why do you ignore this? If you want to grant automatic citizenship you need to explain how you will prevent any negative outcomes like in the Baby Gammie case.

It's not the way to tackle the surrogacy industry. You need to change public opinion for that.

Yet many non-conservative countries with free democracies have successfully banned surrogacy. They did it, why can’t Italy join them?

many people think using a surrogate is a perfectly acceptable way for a gay couple to have a child (there has been no widespread condemnation of Tom Daley, for example).

There was indeed widespread condemnation of Tom Daley and Dustin Black, I’m surprised you missed it. Massively ratioed on Twitter at the time of their first, so much so they were much more low key with their 2nd earlier this year.

This just looks like a right wing government wanting to criminalise gay people for having children

If having children requires you to internationally traffick a baby home then they should be seen as criminals, gay or straight.

“This just looks like a right wing government wanting to criminalise gay people for having children and it is more likely to make people support the right to use a surrogate than to oppose it.”

Or, more accurately…

“This BBC article has been written in this way - making it all about gay men rather than the heterosexual couples who account for 90% of the international surrogacy trade - with the express purpose of making this issue look like a right wing government wanting to criminalise gay people for having children, rather than a government treating both heterosexual and gay couples the same in pursuit of protecting women and babies and the article is more likely to make people support the right to use a surrogate than to oppose it, which is the underlying purpose of this article”

It seems the article has been successful in achieving its aim.

“You are naive if you think criminalising this will stop it from happening.”

Adding the “it’s the oldest profession” cliche to my previous list.

I’m not having a go at you Margot, by the way (but I can see that it could well feel like that). When I said I found this thread fascinating and enlightening, that’s genuinely the case, I wasn’t being snide.

I find listening to all the arguments which get used in these debates really interesting.

Yes, but it is also a problem for thousands of immigrants who enter the country legally and even children of those immigrants. Citizenship is not a given. What's happening here is that gay couples have been exploiting a loophole. They knew it was illegal to use surrogacy in Italy so they went abroad. The government has now said effectively you cannot go abroad to do something which is illegal here. I think this is right in principle but there should be an amnesty so as not to penalise babies which have already been conceived.

As for taking mothers off birth certificates- I am completely against this and see it as a totally different situation. As a heterosexual woman, if I give birth I can name my partner as the father with no proof required. Lesbian couples should have the same rights.

The Melloni government has purposely conflated the two issues though. I am in Italy and I know couples who have been affected by this. It's a mess.

From the BBC article:

"Brothers of Italy MP Ms Varchi points out that "non-biological parents can ask our courts to adopt the children - in special circumstances, this will be recognised".

However this process, called "step-child adoption", is expensive and can take years.

"It's humiliating to adopt your own child," Mauro says."

This is pathetic egoism.

When my brother adopted his step-daughter the adoption rules then were that her mother ALSO had to adopt her own daughter, who had been conceived and gestated the old fashioned way without recourse to any form of fertility treatment. This was in the UK, all were born in the UK. The child's biological father, who had never shown any interest at all in his daughter, had wanted her to be aborted and abandoned her mother when she refused, nevertheless contested the adoption: he was also born and lived in the UK.

It was a lengthy, legal process and, bizarrely, both my brother and the child's mother had to be "approved" for the adoption, just like any couple wanting to adopt a child who was unrelated to either adoptive parent.

They hadn't got two pennies to rub together between them but they saved up some money and then both families helped by topping up so they could afford the legal fees to fight the arsehole biological father who was contesting the adoption.

Neither of them complained about the cost and the mother didn't feel "humiliated", just annoyed that she had to go through the rigmarole of being "assessed" as fit to adopt her own daughter and worried sick that the well off, drug addict, sleazy biological father would win and want contact with the child, just to spite her mum and my brother and mess with their heads.

What they cared about was the future happiness of the child, that she would grow up knowing that she was loved and wanted by both of them. That there would not be any legal or administrative fractures in their family unit that could cause inconvenience or distress in the future - because you know what children are like, they blame themselves, and they didn't want her ever to go through that, to think she was the cause of any problems.

Those egotistical pricks in Italy, I don't care if they are gay I would feel the same way if it was a heterosexual couple. All they care about is their own convenience and are grudging having to spend money they can obviously afford to regularise the relationship for the benefit of the child. As for their fucking fragile egos, them feeling "humiliated", that's the important thing? They expect sympathy for being narcissistic tossers?

I pity the poor child having such selfish, self-centred drama-queens for parents. You can't choose your parents and natural parents can be awful but how humiliating and damaging for that child if she learns how little they cared about her after taking her from her mother to a foreign country thousands of miles away?

Surrogacy should be banned - full stop.