Charles Hicks Wants to Run for Team USA

How does he have US citizenship? One of his parents?

As a 10K/HM guy, switching from GB to US is definetely a little confusing.

Goes from having to deal with Dever, maybe Rowe, to.....

Fisher, Blanks, Young, Kincaid, Wolfe, Jacobs, etc.

His whole family is from Florida. His parents went to the UK for a job and he only moved to Florida when he was 12. He was multiple state champion before going to Stanford but still felt allegiance to the UK because he had grown up there. This is a great result for him. He'd had a very disappointing pro career until this. Ten miles is the distance he was running epic tempos at on the mud flats out near Stanford in college.

So if his family is from Florida, how does he have UK citizenship in the first place? They don't have birthright citizenship in the UK, so someone must have been a Brit, right?

In addition to that David Monti article, JG also confirmed this:

Unless he sees his future as a marathoner

Former Butler standout Tom Anderson also double dipped as a dual in the 10-mile champs a few years ago.

Yes GB may not arbitrarily send him or make him pay his way. But 10K path is harder

That’s why I think he might be eyeing a move to the marathon in the near future. His run today showed he is good at longer distance road racing. The US doesn’t have much depth in the marathon.

Maybe LetsRun can interview Hicks to ask him about his reasoning for his decision and his plans for the future.

I still don't think it makes sense.

Cairess is unbelievable, but Sesemann is pretty human (and 32) and Mahamed is extremely human.

Rowe and Dever both have marathon potential and have done halves, flirting with moving up, but if they do that, than that just leaves the 10K absolutely wide open for Hicks, and if they stay, Hicks has the marathon to work with.

But if you come to the US:

Mantz is 28 and ridiculously good. Young is legit. Albertson is a crazy person, but has ran 2:08. Panning is sub 2:10 (I think). Richtman randomly ran 2:07. Klecker is thinking about moving up, and it's somewhat likely either Blanks or Fisher will in the next five or so years.

And Maier, the guy who Hicks just barely beat, is also a factor.

If this is about 2028 or even 2032, GB is the better path, regardless of event.

Although the UK does not have birthright citizenship, children born in the UK to non-citizen legal residents (I believe it’s called Indefinite Permission to Remain) can become citizens. This may be how Hicks became a citizen.

Dealing with Dever and Rowe plus Cairess, Scott and quite a few others in the low 60s and 61s.

Then you'll have lads like Scott Beattie and Rory Leonard looking to step up.

The standard isn't that much different, especially if Hicks has his eye on marathoning where I suspect it'll soon be as difficult to get a US or UK vest

Marc Scott will get back to a good level and he's a top level competitor if he can. Jake Smith will come good too.

Then you've got Yee to give it a crack and loads of others coming through.

Marc and Jake are done.

Rory Leonard and Scott Beattie who he also mentioned won’t do anything in international racing. Not even worth mentioning in this conversation

Yea it makes no sense it's harder to make team USA.

His parents are British.

he wasnt good enough to run for GB on the track, why does he think he will be good enough for USA? youre welcome to him

The Trump administration is taking its fight to nullify birthright citizenship to the U.S. Supreme Court. To date, every court to have considered Trump's executive order, issued on day one of his administration, has blocked it. But he is persisting.
President Trump's contention that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional is widely considered a fringe view because the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary 127 years ago, and that decision has never been disturbed.
Indeed, the 14th amendment says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Trump, however, has long argued that there is no such thing as automatic citizenship, at least not for all children born in the U.S.
Sponsor Message
Already, three federal judges in three different states have blocked Trump's executive order voiding birthright citizenship, and three separate appeals courts have refused to unblock those court orders. Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee in Washington state, was the first judge to block Trump's executive order, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional."
But Thursday, in three separate — but nearly identical — filings, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the lower court orders, which apply nationwide, so that the administration could begin planning to put into effect its new policy against birthright citizenship.
Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired immigration law professor at Cornell and the co-author of a widely used treatise on immigration, said the court might well be willing to grant that temporary narrowing request. But he added, "I think that would cause chaos and confusion as to who was included in the court rulings and who is potentially subject to the birthright citizenship ban if the case goes in favor of the Trump administration on the merits."
Interestingly, the Trump administration's Supreme Court filing spends far more time on the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, as in this case, than it does on the question of birthright citizenship. That may be because some of the Court's justices have often complained about such nationwide rulings, and rather than deal with the birthright citizenship question, where the administration faces an uphill battle, it may think it has a better shot with a frontal attack on nationwide injunctions.