Justices to hear birthright citizenship case

TheHill.com ^ | 11/6/16 | Lydia Wheeler

[raybbr]

The Supreme Court next week will hear legal arguments in a contentious case over birthright citizenship.

The hearing in Lynch v. Morales-Santana is slated for Wednesday, just a day after the nation hits the polls to select its next president.

At issue is a 1952 federal law that makes birthright citizenship harder to obtain for children born abroad to unwed American fathers than mothers.

Under the law, unwed American fathers must have 10 total years of U.S. residency, including five after the age of 14, to confer citizenship on a child born overseas.

But unwed American mothers are only subject to a 1-year U.S. residency requirement to give their children citizenship.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that provision unconstitutional in a case brought by Luis Ramon Morales-Santana, who was born to a Dominican mother and an American father.

U.S. authorities tried to deport Morales-Santana after he was convicted of robbery and attempted murder.

He claimed he couldn’t be deported because he had obtained citizenship through his father. But the Board of Immigration Appeals refused to reopen his removal proceedings and said he did not have citizenship.

[raybbr]

My true hope would be that they would reverse the law apply the same standard to the mothers as is applied the fathers. I'm sure I'm dreaming.

After they change this law imagine all the "fathers" running around making babies all over the world following their babies mothers to the U.S. and automatically becoming citizens just like their spawn.

[Just mythoughts]

‘Birthright’ citizenship is not the same as ‘natural born’ citizenship... Given the supremes tendencies to make law, I expect nothing good.

[BlessedBeGod]

Yep, make it ten for both.

[spintreebob]

My hope is the Courts do not be the legislative branch. We don’t need them replacing a stupid law with a law even more stupid.

[stockpirate]

The USSC is totally corrupt and serves it’s socialist masters.

[owainG31]

What should also be discussed is the US Government’s unwillingness to force Mexico to enforce its own constitutional statute which prohibits, under threat of federal prison and revocation of all legal status, allowing their children to assume the nationality of the country where their children are born. Children of Mexican nationals born anywhere in the world outside of Mexico are automatically Mexican citizens and are barred from becoming anchor babies.

[Political Junkie Too]

At issue is a 1952 federal law... Under the law, unwed American fathers must have 10 total years of U.S. residency, including five after the age of 14, to confer citizenship on a child born overseas.

Reads like a soldier law? Young men deployed overseas cannot make new citizen babies?

-PJ

[9YearLurker]

Why is that a dream? It seems a pretty obvious thing for them to do, no?

Congress should probably straighten it out with something like five years for both, but if they don’t I’d imagine men would end up with the one-year rule.

[9YearLurker]

Not too many men deployed overseas before age 19 these days.

[windsorknot]

This country has a long list of stupid to be fixed.

[Sasparilla]

...The USSC is totally corrupt and serves it’s socialist masters....

If it’s not totally corrupt yet, it will be if Hillary gets to name replacements. Contrary to what she says,
SCOTUS doesn’t represent the people. It’s job is to honestly interpret the law.

[RideForever]

Currently SCOTUS is likely to split the decision 4 - 4, leaving the appellate decision to stand.

[semimojo]

Children of Mexican nationals born anywhere in the world outside of Mexico are automatically Mexican citizens and are barred from becoming anchor babies

So you're saying the Mexican constitution can prevent the US from granting citizenship to whomever we want?

You may want to think about that.

[Cboldt]

Some of the other cases that touch on this subject include pretty good rationale for making the requirements for unwed parents different, depending on whether the mother is the US citizen (lax standards), or the father is (more stringent standard).

Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)

[Ray76]

Congress has broad power over naturalization, it’s hard to see how the provision could be considered unconstitutional.

[semimojo]

...it’s hard to see how the provision could be considered unconstitutional.

Equal protection.

[Ray76]

Read the cases cited by Cboldt.

[JimRed]

It should be harder on fathers. After all, you ALWAYS know who the mother is, but...

[Cboldt]

-- It should be harder on fathers. After all, you ALWAYS know who the mother is, but... --

That rationale isn't so much knowing parentage, knowing parentage is assumed. The difference (from memory) is which, between UNWED mother and father, is more likely to have custody and raise the child.