Posted on 11/07/2016 3:09:27 AM PST by 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 couldnt 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
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.
Yep, make it ten for both.
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.
The USSC is totally corrupt and serves it’s socialist masters.
Reads like a soldier law? Young men deployed overseas cannot make new citizen babies?
-PJ
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.
Not too many men deployed overseas before age 19 these days.
This country has a long list of stupid to be fixed.
...The USSC is totally corrupt and serves its 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.
Currently SCOTUS is likely to split the decision 4 - 4, leaving the appellate decision to stand.
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.
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)
Congress has broad power over naturalization, it’s hard to see how the provision could be considered unconstitutional.
Equal protection.
Read the cases cited by 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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.