Tag Archive for: Birthright Citizenship

Cyrus Mehta

The False Distinction Between Legal and Undocumented Immigrants in the Debate on Birthright Citizenship

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, which we analyzed in a previous blog, has now been temporarily enjoined and is the subject of multiple lawsuits. The executive order has also brought to light the false dichotomy between “legal” and “undocumented” immigrants, obscuring the nuance of U.S. immigration laws. [Although the Trump administration has replaced references to undocumented individuals with the term “illegal”, we use “undocumented” here to refer to individuals who currently have no legal immigration status in the U.S.]

“Legal” and “undocumented” immigrants alike are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States pursuant to the 14th Amendment. The concept of jus soli, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, has long guaranteed children born in the U.S. the right to U.S. citizenship, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. The Trump administration is incorrectly asserting in its executive order that the 14th Amendment was never intended to confer birthright citizenship to parents who are not lawfully in the US or to parents who may be lawfully in the US but on temporary visas. Many people participating  in the debate on social media feel that birthright citizenship should only be conferred by parents who are legally in the US, and if a tweak has to be made in Trump’s executive order, it should only remove the restrictions on parents who are legally in the US but on temporary visas. The executive order is unconstitutional in its entirety and should be struck down.

This distinction between “legal” and “undocumented” immigrants is an overly simplistic, and often false, one.  A noncitizen who entered the U.S. with a valid visa can easily fall out of status, while a path to U.S. citizenship may eventually become available to an individual who was previously undocumented. Indeed,   legal and “undocumented” immigration are points on a continuum rather than discrete concepts. An entirely undocumented individual who is placed in removal proceedings can seek cancellation of removal and become a permanent resident. Similarly, an individual who entered the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa and overstayed it for many years could meet and marry a U.S. citizen spouse, thus becoming eligible to apply for permanent residence. At times, Congress bestows such permanent residency to previously-undocumented individuals through section 245(i) or the LIFE Act.

Moreover, one thinks of an undocumented immigrant as a person who entered the United States without inspection or who came to the US legally on a visa and overstayed. However, the term is broader to encompass persons who were previously unauthorized and who have been authorized to stay such as recipients of the Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, applicants for Temporary Protected Status (TPS),  those who have pending asylum applications and applications for other relief such as under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) or crime victim U visas. There are also those who are on supervised release or who have obtained stays of removal and eligible for employment authorization year after year.

In 1982 in Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982), a landmark Supreme Court case which held children could not be deprived of a public education on the basis of their immigration status, the Court eloquently explained that an individual’s undocumented status is often temporary, stating:

To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in the country, or even become a citizen.

The Court affirmed that an undocumented individual living in the United States “is surely ‘a person’ in any ordinary sense of that term,” “[w]hatever his status under the immigration laws.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982).

Moreover, some individuals who do currently have a lawful status may nonetheless be authorized to remain in the U.S., as we highlighted in another prior blog. An asylum applicant is authorized to remain in the U.S. and apply for employment authorization 150 days after filing the asylum application even though he has not yet been granted asylum and would not qualify as an asylee under 8 CFR 245.1(d)(1)(iii). Similarly, an individual who has filed an I-485 application to adjust status is authorized to remain in the U.S. even if she does not have a valid, underlying nonimmigrant status. An individual in removal proceedings is authorized to remain in the U.S. and seek relief until the conclusion of the proceedings. Even a noncitizen who has been ordered removed but filed petition for review in circuit court can apply for work authorization and continue to reside in the U.S. during the pendency of the appeal.

In Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of discretion in removal proceedings, explaining that it is not always appropriate to place even an entirely undocumented individual in removal proceedings:

Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. See §1227…A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials…Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all…

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation’s international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation’s foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.

Drawing a distinction between those on temporary visas and those who are lawful permanent residents also ignores the practical reality that many nonimmigrants are “Americans in waiting”. A nonimmigrant in H-1B status has a clear path to becoming a permanent resident, and eventually a U.S. citizen, through sponsorship by an employer but has to wait for many decades due to backlogs in their green card category. DACA recipients who have lived almost their entire lives in the U.S. may have few ties to any other country and could become lawful permanent residents through marriage to a U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, or through an employment-based category.

On the other hand, a noncitizen who comes to the United States with a valid visa may not could later overstay their visa, thus becoming “undocumented”. Violations of a nonimmigrant visa also render a noncitizen’s immigration status ambiguous. An H-1B worker who works from home and moves across the country before an amended H-1B petition is filed, for example, could technically be in violation of his status.

According to Professor Gerald Neuman, “[T]he framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had strong reason from desiring a constitutional settlement of the issue of birthright citizenship. They had just overthrown a system founded on denial of political membership in the country to a hereditary category of inhabitants. The Citizenship Clause was designed to prevent the situation from happening again…[T]he supporters of the Citizenship Clause expressly confirmed their intent to protect the children of Chinese parents by recognizing them as citizens.” See Statement of Prof. Gerald E. Neuman, Societal and Legal Issues Surrounding Children Born in the United States to Illegal Alien Parents: Joint Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Immigration & Claims and the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. (1995).

The only exceptions were children born to diplomats of foreign nations who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as well as children born to parents accompanying an invading army that temporarily ousted the operation of local law. The framers also excluded children born within Native American tribes  because they owed allegiance to their tribal nations rather than the United States, but this preclusion was  eventually eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

On the other hand, undocumented parents are clearly subject to prosecution in the United States as well as temporary noncitizens. They can also hardly be considered to be part of an invading army that has ousted the local operation of law. Even the argument that undocumented parents and nonimmigrants owe their allegiance to a foreign government rather than to the U.S. government is spurious. Temporary residents in nonimmigrant status can remain in the U.S. for many years as they wait for permanent residence. They could owe allegiance to the U.S. government and so could an undocumented immigrant just as a U.S. citizen would. Lawful permanent residents, who are not U.S. citizens,  could owe their allegiance to the U.S. government but also to a foreign government without risking losing that status.   U.S. citizens may also be citizens of other countries and may owe their allegiance to a foreign government, the U.S. government, or both, but both U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents  qualify under Trump’s executive order to confer birthright citizenship to their children born in the U.S.

In  United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court extended the Fourteenth Amendment to an individual who was born to parents of Chinese descent and during a time when Chinese nationals were subjected to the Chinese exclusion laws. The principle established in Wong Kim Ark applies with equal vigor today. Excluding an allegedly undocumented parent who has been a DACA recipient since 2012  from conferring birthright citizenship to their child would make no sense. It would also make no sense to deem a parent who was in technical violation of their H-1B status as undocumented at the time of the birth to her child. It would also be unfair to deprive a parent in lawful H-1B status who has been waiting for their green card for over a decade from conferring birthright citizenship to their child. The Supreme Court’s hallowed ruling on birthright citizenship established well over 125 years back  a fundamental American value that all people born in the United States are equal at birth, regardless of their race, religion, or the immigration or financial status of their parents.

 

*Kaitlyn Box is a Partner at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Should Trump’s Lawyers Implementing Policies That Hurt Immigrants be Concerned About Violating Their Ethical Obligations? 

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On January 23, 2025, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Benjamine C. Huffman issued a memorandum entitled “Guidance Regarding How to Exercise Enforcement Discretion”, which directs ICE to take the following action: 

(1) For any alien DHS is aware of who is amenable to expedited removal but to whom expedited removal has not been applied:

     a. Take all steps necessary to review the alien’s case and consider, in exercising your enforcement discretion, whether to apply expedited removal. This may include steps to terminate any ongoing removal proceeding and/or any active parole status.

(2) For any alien DHS is aware of who does not meet the conditions described in (1) but has been granted parole under a policy that may be paused, modified, or terminated immediately under the January 20 memorandum:

a. Take all steps necessary to review the alien’s case and consider, in exercising your enforcement discretion, whether any such alien should be placed in removal proceedings; and

b. Review the alien’s parole status to determine, in exercising your enforcement discretion, whether parole remains appropriate in light of any changed legal or factual circumstances.

On January 6, 2023, the Biden Administration instituted a humanitarian parole program allowing certain nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) to apply for entry to  the U.S. for a temporary stay of up to two years. All individuals admitted through the CHNV program must have a U.S.-based supporter, pass security vetting, and meet other criteria. Parole is not an immigration status. During the two-year parole period, individuals may seek humanitarian relief or other immigration benefits, if they are eligible, and work during that time. See our blog for further details on the CHNV program. 

The Biden Administration committed to accepting 30,000 beneficiaries a month from across the four countries. Within the first six months of launching the program, over 35,000 Cubans, 50,000 Haitians, 21,500 Nicaraguans, and 48,500 Venezuelans came to the U.S. through the program. As of August 2024, almost 530,000 people have been granted parole through the CHNV program, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order terminating the CHNV program. The Huffman memorandum now allows  recipients of the CHNV program  who had been paroled into the United States to be expeditiously removed. It also includes nationals of Ukraine, Afghanistan  and Colombia who have been paroled under separate programs.  These individuals followed the rules established under the Biden administration in order to be paroled into the US in a safe, orderly and legitimate manner. They have now been blindsided and betrayed by the Trump administration. 

The devastating impact that this policy stands to have calls into question the conduct of the Trump administration lawyers involved in its development. We credit our colleague Michele Carney in providing input on ethical issues on the part of government lawyers in the Trump administration. ABA Model Rule 8.4 (c)-(d), (g) prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct that involves “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”, that is “prejudicial to the administration of justice”, or that “the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law”. By directing DHS officials to expeditiously remove some parolees, the memorandum could run afoul of ABA Model Rule 8.4(d) by depriving these individuals of due process. Termination of parole for some individuals could also be viewed as discrimination on the basis of national origin in violation of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). If DHS’ implementation of the program results in a misrepresentation, a violation of ABA Model Rule 8.4(c) could also occur. The memorandum in itself may not be indicative of unethical conduct, but its implementation carries significant risk of violation of ethical rules by government lawyers in the Trump administration. 

In a previous blog, we discussed Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship to only a child born in the US has one parent who is either a US citizen or a permanent resident. The granting of automatic citizenship to a child born in the US is rooted in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” In United States. V Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court extended the Fourteenth Amendment to an individual who was born to  parents of Chinese descent and during a time when Chinese nationals were subjected to the Chinese exclusion laws:

The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owning direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciles here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

 On January 23, 2025 Judge Coughenhour in the US District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle issued a temporary injunction blocking the implementation of the executive order. During the hearing, Judge Coughenhour called the order “blatantly unconstitutional”, stating “There are other times in world history where we look back and people of goodwill can say, ‘Where were the judges? Where were the lawyers?’”. Judge Coughenour’s comments call into question ABA Model Rule 3.1, which states that a lawyer “shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law”. The  Trump administration’s restriction of birthright citizenship  could be viewed as a violation of Rule 3.1 if found to be unconstitutional. Rule 3.1 allows for good faith arguments for the “extension, modification, or reversal of existing law”, however, and it is likely that Trump administration lawyers would argue that the policy laid out in the new executive order falls within this exception. 

Experts will disagree and take the position that Trump’s lawyers may be committing ethical violations in supporting policies that may be cruel and harmful to immigrants. Supporting blatantly unconstitutional actions may be cause for concern according to our colleague, Craig Dobson. Independent of the specific rules governing lawyer conduct, Trump’s lawyers should ensure that their actions align with the ideals of the profession, which prioritize fairness, justice, and upholding the rights of individuals. While Trump holds the office of President of the United States, he is not a lawyer, and is not beholden to the same ethical standards. Lawyers, by contrast, are called to uphold the laws of the United States and avoid perpetuating harm and injustice. 

 *Kaitlyn Box is a Partner at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

 

Cyrus Mehta

Trump’s Executive Order Restricting Birthright Citizenship Is So Unconstitutional that Even the Supreme Court May Reject It

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On January 20, 2025, Inauguration Day, Donald Trump signed an executive order entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”, which interprets the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that U.S. citizenship does not extend to individuals born in the United States: 

1. when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, 

2. or when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

The executive order further directs agencies not to “issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship” to individuals falling within these categories. Further, the executive order specifies that it applies “only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order”, and does not speak to whether the U.S. citizenship of a child who has already been born to two non-U.S. citizen or LPR parents will continue to be recognized. 

The American Civil Liberties Union has already sued the Trump administration over this executive order. The complaint argues that the Fourteenth Amendment was indented to confer U.S. citizenship on all persons born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents, and asserts that the executive order violates the Fourteenth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1401, which mirrors the Fourteenth Amendment’s language, and the Administrative Procedure Act. 

The granting of automatic citizenship to a child born in the US is rooted in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”

Lost in the heated political rhetoric surrounding Trump’s executive order is that it is next to impossible to amend the hallowed Fourteenth Amendment, which was enacted to ensure birthright citizenship to African Americans after the Civil War, and following the infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford  that held that African Americans could not claim American citizenship.   In  United States. V Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court  extended the Fourteenth Amendment to an individual who was born to  parents of Chinese descent and during a time when Chinese nationals were subjected to the Chinese exclusion laws:

The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owning direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciles here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

Although in Elk v. Williams, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), those born within Native American tribes were not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of this country because they owed allegiance to their tribal nations rather than the United States,  this preclusion was  eventually eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Even the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Cantu, Interim Decision #2748, broadly held that one who was born on a territory in 1935, the Horcon Tract, where the United States had impliedly relinquished control, but had not yet ceded it to Mexico until 1972, was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and thus a US citizen.

 Other lawsuits are sure to follow, and the executive order may be blocked by federal courts. As the recent decision on DACA in the Fifth Circuit, which enjoined the program only in Texas, demonstrates, a federal court decision could result in the different definitions of who is a U.S. citizen depending on the jurisdiction. Thus, even if plaintiffs prevail in the legal action in federal court in New Hampshire, the court may not issue a nationwide injunction. A Trump appointed federal judge in Texas in a different lawsuit may reach a different conclusion based on his or her interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Fourteenth Amendment.  Given its current conservative composition, however, Trump is hoping that the  Supreme Court may ultimately accept his administration’s reinterpretation of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language and uphold the executive order. Even that is unlikely as the parents of a child who are undocumented or in nonimmigrant status are always subject to prosecution,  unlike a diplomat who enjoys immunity, and are thus subject to the jurisdiction of the US. It is also highly unlikely that nonimmigrant parents would be considered enemies during a hostile occupation of  a part of  US territory even if Trump might like to imagine so! 

In the meantime, the executive order creates much ambiguity and poses severe consequences for individuals who otherwise would have been U.S. citizens. The executive order applies not only to children of two undocumented parents, but also to the U.S. born children of parents who hold a valid nonimmigrant status, such as H-1B and H-4. How will a child as soon as it is born acquire H-4 status? One needs to be admitted into the US in H-4 status or change from another nonimmigrant status into H-4 status. Perhaps, the Trump administration may need to issue a regulation recognizing H-4 status of the child at the time of its birth.    As we noted in a prior blog, the best chance for Indian-born beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions who are trapped in the employment-based second (EB-2) and third (EB-3) preference backlogs to obtain permanent residence without waiting for several decades could be sponsorship by a U.S.-born adult child. Parents of children born after the effective date of the executive order may no longer have this opportunity. The executive order will cruelly create a permanent underclass of noncitizens. The child in H-4 status would have to leave the US when it turns 21 unless it finds a way to change to another nonimmigrant status or obtain permanent residence independently such as through marriage with a U.S. citizen. 

The executive order’s application to other categories of children born in the U.S. is unclear. For example, would U.S. citizenship extend to the child born to a mother in valid H-1B status, but who also had a pending I-485 application and is able to exercise portability under INA § 204(j)? Similarly, would a child born to a nonimmigrant mother be considered a U.S. citizen if the father is an anonymous sperm donor in the U.S.? Based on the plain language of the executive order, it appears likely that U.S. citizenship would not extend to either of these children. 

*Kaitlyn Box is a Partner at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC.

Update:  Since the publication of the blog, on January 23, 2025 Judge Coughenhour in the US District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle issued a temporary injunction stating “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order. Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”

Cyrus Mehta

Saving America by Defending Clients Against Trump’s Immigration Policies

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta and Kaitlyn Box*

On November 5, 2024, Donald Trump was once again elected president. Although Trump’s campaign has been marked by anti-immigrant rhetoric, some hope that a second Trump administration will prove favorable to employment-based immigration. Trump once promised to “staple a green card to every diploma” of graduates of U.S. colleges, and has cultivated relationships with business moguls like Elon Musk and Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy.

However, a second Trump presidency is likely to create obstacles even for legal skilled immigrants. Former Trump advisor Stephen Miller, who has espoused notoriously anti-immigrant views, is expected to be appointed Deputy Chief of Staff, and will doubtless influence Trump’s immigration policies. In a post on X last year, Miller confirmed that a denaturalization project started during Trump’s first term would be “turbocharged” in 2025. During his campaign, Trump affirmed his intention to end birthright citizenship. For Indian-born beneficiaries of approved I-140 petitions who are trapped in the employment-based second (EB-2) and third (EB-3) preference backlogs, being sponsored by a U.S.-born adult child may provide a chance of obtaining permanent residence without waiting for decades. Trump’s proposed policies would ensure that even children born in the U.S. would not be afforded the security of U.S. citizenship unless one of their parents is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, as well as prevent these children from sponsoring their parents for permanent residence in future. This policy, if implemented, could be challenged in federal court as violations of the 14th Amendment, which provides that “all persons born […] in the United States…are citizens of the United States”, but the current conservation composition of the Supreme Court could render these efforts more difficult.

The Trump administration will seek to thwart employment-based immigration in other ways, as well. During his first term, Trump restricted the H-1B visa program through increased numbers of Requests for Evidence (RFEs) challenging the payment of Level 1 wages, promulgation of a policy memorandum stating that computer programmer positions may not be “specialty occupations”, and imposing onerous documentary requirements on employers who place employees at third-party worksite, as discussed at length in prior blogs. Restrictions of this nature are expected to return, and possibly intensify, during Trump’s second term.

Undocumented immigrants and beneficiaries of humanitarian programs may stand to suffer even more severely under a second Trump administration. Trump has vowed to “bring back” the infamous travel bans INA 212(f), ban refugees from Gaza, and carry out mass deportations. He has also threatened to invoke the Enemy Aliens Act of 1798, which allows for the detention and deportation of noncitizen nationals of an enemy country during wartime, as a justification for widespread deportations. His administration will seek to increasingly use expedited removal INA 235(b)(1)(A)(iii) without an immigration court hearing for noncitizens who are within the border of the US and cannot prove that they have been in the US for more than two years. The return of family separation and reinstatement of the “remain in Mexico” policy appears likely, as does the termination of TPS designations for many country, DACA, and humanitarian parole programs.

Notwithstanding the challenges that Trump’s return is likely to bring, immigration lawyers are prepared to vigorously defend noncitizen clients. His prior presidency provided insight into the types of policies that are likely to return, and allowed advocates to gain experience in combatting these harmful measures. Even if Trump got a popular mandate that does not give him license to ignore the law and act outside the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Immigration lawyers are all set to defend immigrants to preserve the foundations upon which the country is built.

 

 

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Extending Visitor Visa Status During Covid-19 and after the Birth Tourism Rule

/0 Comments/in /by

Visitors who have been admitted in B-2 visa status may extend their status while in the United States. Even if a visitor has a multiple entry visa in the passport for a duration of ten years, the visitor is admitted into the US for a more limited time at a port of entry, which is generally a period of six months in B-2 status.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, many visitors have sought to extend their status as flights are not yet plying to their home country or they may wish to avoid flying out of fear of contracting the infection. Some countries have put restrictions on travelers from the US. A request to extend B-2 status may be made by filing Form I-539 pursuant to 8 CFR 214.1(c)(1) either electronically or through a paper-based application. Although this blog’s focus is on filing an extension for B-2 status, it is also possible to change from another nonimmigrant status to B-2 status pursuant to 8 CFR 248.1. Many nonimmigrants in H-1B or L status who have lost their jobs due to the economic downturn caused by Covid-19 have had to resort to changing to B-2 status due to non-availability of flights to their home country. Note that one who was admitted under the Visa Waiver as a visitor for 90 days is not eligible for filing for an extension of status, although a Visa Waiver entrant may apply for a 30 day extension directly wither with USCIS or CBP called Satisfactory Departure.

In order to be eligible to request an extension of B-2 status or a change to B-2 status, it is important for the applicant to have maintained her current nonimmigrant status. If the visitor has engaged in unauthorized employment, he will be ineligible to request an extension of status. Although the extension or change of status request must be filed timely, the USCIS has authority to exercise its discretion in excusing an untimely filing based on extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. The applicant must also demonstrate that she has not otherwise violated nonimmigrant status, continues to remain a bona fide nonimmigrant and is not the subject of removal proceedings. The USCIS has indicated that it will consider late filings caused as a result of Covid-19. See 8 CFR 214.1(c)(4) for authority for excusing untimely filings for extensions of status and 8 CFR 248(b) for excusing untimely filings for change of status.

There are very harsh consequences if the applicant overstays the terms of his stay in the US. Overstaying one’s visa results in the automatic voidance of the multiple entry visa on the passport under INA 222(g). Overstaying beyond the expiration of the nonimmigrant status, governed by the I-94, for more than 180 days results in a 3-year bar against re-entry under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I). Furthermore, overstaying the visa for more than one-year results in a 10-year bar against re-entry under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). Therefore, ensuring that the I-539 is timely submitted (of if not timely submitted, it is at least excused by USCIS) will toll the accrual of unlawful presence, and thus avoid the triggering of automatic voidance of the visa stamp or the accrual of unlawful presence that will result in the 3- or 10-year bars to reentry into the United States.

At the time of submission, Form I-539 must be accompanied by evidence that the reason for the extension is consistent with the purpose of the visitor visa, and the visitor continues to maintain a residence in the home country as well as ties with that country. It is also strongly recommended that a sworn statement is included that clearly indicates the need for the extension and the change of intention since the initial admission to stay longer, along with an I-94 printout and other evidence of financial sufficiency and support. A Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, may also be submitted to bolster the evidence of financial support. The new public charge rule took effect on February 24, 2020 and applies to extension and change of status requests. The USCIS will consider whether an applicant seeking an extension of stay or change of status has received, since obtaining the nonimmigrant status she seeks to extend or from which he or she seeks to change, public benefits for more than 12 months, in total, within any 36-month period, such that, for instance, the receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months.  Among the prohibited benefits is federally funded Medicaid, although Medicaid funding for an emergency medical condition will not be considered, which includes emergency labor and delivery. Noncitizens regardless of status are eligible to receive Medicaid for an emergency medical condition. See 42 CFR 440.255A. Form I-539 has new sections that require applicants to check off whether they have accepted prohibited benefits.

Notwithstanding the Medicaid exception for emergency medical conditions, including pregnancy and birth, applicants have to be very careful regarding applying for extensions based on health reasons, especially relating to pregnancy and birth. The Trump administration has amended the definition of visitor for pleasure at 22 CFR 41.31(b)(2) to prohibit so called birth tourism. The original version of this rule, before it was amended on January 24, 2020, defined “pleasure” as stated in INA 101(a)(15(B) “to legitimate activities of a recreational character, including tourism, amusement, visits with friends or relatives, rest, medical treatment, and activities of a fraternal, social, or service nature.” Now 22 CFR 41.31(b)(2)(i) includes the old definition for pleasure but adds that the term “pleasure” does not include obtaining a visa for the primary purpose of obtaining US citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States. The new rule at 22 CFR 41.31(b)(2) is reproduced in verbatim below:

(i) The term pleasure, as used in INA 101(a)(15)(B) for the purpose of visa issuance, refers to legitimate activities of a recreational character, including tourism, amusement, visits with friends or relatives, rest, medical treatment, and activities of a fraternal, social, or service nature, and does not include obtaining a visa for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States.

(ii) Any visa applicant who seeks medical treatment in the United States under this provision shall be denied a visa under INA section 214(b) if unable to establish, to the satisfaction of a consular officer, a legitimate reason why he or she wishes to travel to the United States for medical treatment, that a medical practitioner or facility in the United States has agreed to provide treatment, and that the applicant has reasonably estimated the duration of the visit and all associated costs. The applicant also shall be denied a visa under INA section 214(b) if unable to establish to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he or she has the means derived from lawful sources and intent to pay for the medical treatment and all incidental expenses, including transportation and living expenses, either independently or with the pre-arranged assistance of others.

iii) Any B nonimmigrant visa applicant who a consular officer has reason to believe will give birth during her stay in the United States is presumed to be traveling for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for the child.

President Trump has always intended to abolish birthright citizenship even though it is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Knowing fully well that the abolition of birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, the Trump administration quietly amended the State Department regulation as a step towards discouraging pregnant women from entering the US to give birth to children who then automatically become US citizens. While birthright citizenship has advantages, and abolishing it will be a bureaucratic nightmare as it may be applied retroactively (see Why Birthright Citizenship is so Wonderful for America), visa applicants now have to confront needless scrutiny while applying for a tourist visa. A pregnant person may be denied a visa even if the primary goal is not to give birth to a child in the US for the purpose of conferring US citizenship. The applicant may wish to seek the best medical care for a potentially complicated pregnancy, or may be more comfortable with a doctor and hospital facility in the US than in her own country. An applicant may be travelling purely for business or a holiday and intending to return to her home country to give birth, and could still be denied the visa. Even if the applicant wishes to seek a visa for pursuing medical treatment, even if it is not associated with pregnancy and birth, the rule now requires a demonstration that the applicant will be able to pay for the costs of the medical treatment, and has the ability to pay for them through lawful sources.

Although 22 CFR 41.31(b)(2) applies to a visa issuance at a US Consulate, the USCIS would also likely refer to it when applying for an extension of status even though an applicant previously was issued the B-2 visa at the US consulate. The USCIS routinely issues a Request for Evidence (RFE) asking for further evidence of ties with the home country and financial sufficiency after a request for an extension if filed. An extension request based on medical reasons will result in more scrutiny as a result of 22 CFR 41.31(b)(2). This author has seen RFEs asking for a detailed letter from the applicant’s physician regarding the medical condition, the prescribed treatment and its duration, the physician’s opinion on the applicant’s ability to travel, and the availability of similar treatment in the applicant’s home country. The RFE may also ask for the stated reason for the trip when applying for the B-2 visa at the US Consulate. If the applicant was already suffering from symptoms of the medical condition, the RFE may question whether this was disclosed to the Consular Officer, and if not, an explanation for why the applicant did not disclose the possibility of her seeking treatment in the US. The RFE may also demand extensive proof of financial ability of the applicant to pay the medical bills. Finally, the RFE will also ask for proof of foreign residence when the applicant departs the US.

The timely filing of the I-539 application tolls the accrual of unlawful presence for purposes of the 3- and 10-year bars to reentry into the US if the applicant stays beyond the expiration of the validity date on the I-94. If the I-539 remains pending beyond the requested date, as the request can be made for up to 6 months, another I-539 application must be filed before the date the first extension if granted would have expired even if there has been no decision on the first I-539. The applicant may, however, depart the US during the pendency of the I-539 application. If the application is denied, there is no right of appeal, although the applicant may request a motion to reopen or reconsider. Requesting a reopening or reconsideration will not toll unlawful presence for purposes of the 3- and 10-year bars. If the extension is granted, it is imperative that the applicant depart the US timely prior to the expiration of the extended date. While there is no limit in seeking additional extensions, the USCIS will take issue with immigrant intent.

Finally, even if all goes well and the applicant timely departs the US, the Consular Officer could still question why the applicant sought an extension at the time of next applying for a renewal of the B-2 visa at the US Consulate. Given all the risks and pitfalls, one should avoid seeking an extension or change of status to B-2 unless it is truly necessary and made in good faith.

(This is blog is for informational purposes only, and should not be viewed as a substitute for legal advice)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cyrus Mehta

Why Birthright Citizenship Is Most Wonderful For America

/0 Comments/in /by

Donald Trump advocating that the United States should end birthright citizenship in his immigration reform plan is nothing new. Politicians have frequently brought up the so called dangers of birthright citizenship to pander to their base. Recently in 2011, Steve King (R-IA), one of the most anti-immigrant members of Congress, proposed the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, which did not go anywhere because of its absurdity.  Future attempts too will similarly fail since birthright citizenship is too entrenched in the fabric of this nation. It is also good for America.

The granting of automatic citizenship to a child born in the US is rooted in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”

Lost in the heated political rhetoric of Trump and other Republican presidential contenders who are parroting him is that it is next to impossible to amend the hallowed Fourteenth Amendment, which was enacted to ensure birthright citizenship to African Americans after the Civil War, and following the infamous Dred Scottdecision that held that African Americans could not claim American citizenship.   In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court  extended the Fourteenth Amendment to an individual who was born to  parents of Chinese descent and during a time when Chinese nationals were subjected to the Chinese exclusion laws:

The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owning direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciles here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

Although in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1984), those born within Native American tribes were not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of this country because they owed allegiance to their tribal nations rather than the United States,  this preclusion was  eventually eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Even the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Cantu, Interim Decision #2748, broadly held that one who was born on a territory in 1935, the Horton Tract, where the United States had impliedly relinquished control, but had not yet ceded it to Mexico until 1972, was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and thus a US citizen.

One can also pick a leaf from the State Department’s book on birthright citizenship. Contrary to the common notion -that parents come to the US to give birth to children so that they may become US citizens – some non-US citizen parents do not desire that their minor children remain US citizens, notwithstanding their birth in the US. Their main motivation is that if they choose not to live in the US permanently, they would rather that the child enjoys the citizenship of their nationality so that he does not suffer any potential impediments later on in that country, such as the inability to vote, attend educational institutions or stand for elected office. This may not be possible if the child is born in the US, since the State Department’s regulation provides that “[i[t is unlawful for a citizen of the United States, unless excepted under 22 CFR 53.2, to enter or depart, or attempt to enter or depart, the United States, without a valid passport.” See 22 CFR §53.1.

The relevant extract from the State Department’s 7 FAM 1292 is worth noting to show how difficult it is for a child born in the US not to be considered an American citizen:

  1. Occasionally, CA/OCS or a post abroad will receive an inquiry from the parent of a child born in the United States who acquired US citizenship at birth protesting the “involuntary” acquisition of US citizenship.
  2. Jus soli (the law of the soil) is the rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes. The 14th Amendment states, in part, that: All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
  3. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which U.S. citizenship laws are based and, in particular, the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
  4. Children born in the United States to diplomats accredited to the United States are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and do not acquire U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment or the laws derived from it [citation omitted].
  5. Parents or guardians cannot renounce or relinquish the U.S. citizenship of a child who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.
Since a Constitutional amendment requires a favorable vote of two thirds of each house of Congress and ratification by three quarters of the states or the holding of conventions in three quarters of the states, efforts will be made, like H.R. 140 did, to tinker with section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which replicates the 14th amendment. H.R. 140 strove to narrowly limit birthright citizenship to a person born in the US to parents who were either citizens of the United States or lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

Assuming that such a bill got enacted into law, it would deprive the child of a nonimmigrant parent from automatically becoming a US citizen who is lawfully in the US in H-1B status, and approved for permanent residence but for the fact that she is stuck in the employment-based preference backlogs for many years. What would be the status of such a child who was not born of parents of the pedigree prescribed in such a law? Would the child be rendered deportable the minute it is born by virtue of being an alien present in the US without being admitted or paroled under INA section 212(a)(6)(A)(i)? Moreover, would such a law also have retroactive application? It is likely to have retroactive effect since a Constitutional provision ought to only be interpreted in one way for all times. If a new statute interprets the Fourteenth Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to not include children of parents who were undocumented, or who were not citizens or permanent residents, and this interpretation is upheld by a court,  then children who were born as US citizens will no longer be considered citizens. How far would one have to go then to strip people of citizenship? Parents, grandparents and even great grandparents will no longer be considered citizens, in addition to the child. Millions upon millions of Americans ensconced in comfortable suburbia will overnight be deemed to be non-citizens, perhaps even illegal aliens and deportable.  The repealing of birthright would certainly have unintended consequences of a nightmarish quality, and it is quite likely that some of the repeal’s most strident champions might be declared as “illegal aliens” and unfit to run for office!

The only historic exceptions to those subject to the jurisdiction of the US are diplomats and enemies during the hostile occupation of a part of US territory.  A diplomat, in accordance with Wong Kim Ark, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US as a diplomat enjoys immunity from US law, but a child of such a diplomat born in the US is at least deemed to be a permanent resident. See Matter of Huang, Interim Decision #1472 (BIA May 27, 1965). Congress even passed legislation to ensure that children of all Native Americans are US citizens. See INA section 301(b). An undocumented immigrant is undoubtedly subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If he commits a crime, he will surely be prosecuted. He can sue and be sued in US courts, and Uncle Sam gleefully collects his taxes as well as his contributions to social security (even if he is unable to claim it later on). One cannot liken an immigrant who has entered the US without inspection with the objective of finding work to a member of a hostile force occupying a part of the US. When a hostile force occupies any part of the US, the laws of the US are no longer applicable in the occupied territory. Thus, children of an occupying enemy alien have not been considered to be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US as they did not derive protection from or owe any obedience or allegiance to the country. Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830). By contrast, a terrorist who enters the US in a nonimmigrant status, such as on an F-1 student visa with an ulterior motive to commit an act of terrorism, unlike a member of a hostile occupying force, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US as she can be convicted or treated as an enemy noncombatant, and if she gives birth to child here, the child ought to be a US citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

It has also become fashionable for politicians to refer to such children born in the US as “anchor babies,” on the assumption that the US citizen children will legalize their undocumented parents. While this is theoretically possible, the parent will have to wait until the US citizen child turns 21 before the parent can be sponsored for permanent residence. If the parent came into the US without inspection, the parent will have to depart the US and proceed overseas for processing at a US consulate, and will likely have to wait for an additional 10 years. The waiting time is rather long under such a game plan: 21 years, if the parent was inspected;  or 31 years, if the parent crossed the border without inspection.The repeal of birthright citizenship will result in absurd and disastrous results. Birthright citizenship  renders all born in this country to be treated equally as Americans no matter who their parents are or where they came from, and it also prevents a permanent underclass from taking root that will continue for generations.

Now, as a nation, we don’t promise equal outcomes, but we were founded on the idea everybody should have an equal opportunity to succeed. No matter who you are, what you look like, where you come from, you can make it. That’s an essential promise of America. Where you start should not determine where you end up.

Barack Obama

Cyrus Mehta

DEPORTING A US CITIZEN CHILD? TAKE A LEAF OUT OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S BOOK ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

/0 Comments/in /by

By Cyrus D. Mehta

This week, while we have all been stunned at the way Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) sent a four year old US citizen child packing out of the country to Guatemala, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/23/navarrette.child.deported/?hpt=Sbin, even though her parents lived in the US, we can take some comfort that the State Department scrupulously adheres to birthright citizenship enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Contrary to the common notion -that parents come to the US to give birth to children so that they may become US citizens – some non-US citizen parents do not desire that their minor children remain US citizens, notwithstanding their birth in the US. Their main motivation is that if they choose not to live in the US permanently, they would rather that the child enjoys the citizenship of their nationality so that he or she does not suffer any potential impediments later on in that country, such as the inability to vote, attend educational institutions or stand for elected office. Often times, the country of the parent’s nationality and the United States lay claims on the child’s citizenship, and this may often create conflicts between the citizenship laws of the two countries, particularly if the child will return to its parents’ country and live there.

For instance, a child born to Indian citizen parents in the US can still claim to be an Indian citizen by descent, even though India does not otherwise permit dual nationality, provided that the parents declare that the child does not hold the passport of another country, http://www.mha.nic.in/pdfs/ic_act55.pdf. This may not be possible if the child is born in the US, and thus a US citizen and potentially an Indian citizen, since the State Department’s regulation provides that “[i[t is unlawful for a citizen of the United States, unless excepted under 22 CFR 53.2, to enter or depart, or attempt to enter or depart, the United States, without a valid passport.” See 22 CFR §53.1. Therefore, if the child obtains an Indian passport while in the US, it will still need to depart the US with a US passport, and this may conflict with the Indian requirement of submitting a declaration that the child does not hold the passport of another country.

Moreover, even after the child has left the US, unless the child can effectively renounce US citizenship at a US Consulate (and that too could be problematic as a child cannot make a knowing renunciation), the child will most likely have to return to the US on the US passport. Regarding the renunciation of US citizenship by a minor, the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual at 7 FAM 1292 clearly states that parents or guardians cannot renounce or relinquish the citizenship of a child who acquired US citizenship at birth. The relevant extract from 7 FAM 1292 is worth noting:

  1. occasionally, CA/OCS or a post abroad will receive an inquiry from the parent of a child born in the United States who acquired US citizenship at birth protesting the “involuntary” acquisition of US citizenship.

  1. Jus soli (the law of the soil) is the rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes. The 14th Amendment states, in part, that: All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

  1. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which U.S. citizenship laws are based and, in particular, the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

  1. Children born in the United States to diplomats accredited to the United States are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and do not acquire U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment or the laws derived from it [citation omitted].

  1. Parents or guardians cannot renounce or relinquish the U.S. citizenship of a child who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.

While the FAM leaves open the possibility for a minor to renounce citizenship, there must be a determination by the consul whether the minor had the requisite maturity and knowing intent, free from parental influence. According to 7 FAM 1292(i)(3), “Minors who seek to renounce citizenship often do so at the behest of or under pressure from one or more parent. If such pressure is so overwhelming as to negate the free will of the minor, it cannot be said that the statutory act of expatriation was committed voluntarily. The younger the minor is at the time of renunciation, the more influence the parent is assumed to have.” 7 FAM 1292(i)(2) further states, “Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent.” It should be noted, though, that even if a child successfully renounces US citizenship, upon reaching 18 years, the child has a six-month opportunity to reclaim US nationality. See INA § 351(b).

The deportation of the 4 year old child is one recent example. CBP’s sister agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has also been notorious for detaining and deporting US citizens in recent times, http://stateswithoutnations.blogspot.com/2010/07/us-citizens-detained-and-deported-2010.html despite an ICE memo admonishing its officers to treat claims by US citizens with care and sensitivity, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-reform/pdf/usc_guidance_nov_2009.pdf. In a time when a very vocal minority is advocating for the repeal of birthright citizenship, government agencies in charge of enforcing immigration laws ought not to be swayed by the passions of the day, and must scrupulously ensure that a child born in the US, regardless of the parents’ status, is treated as a US citizen under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, like the State Department does.

Cyrus Mehta

THE ABSURDITY OF THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 2011

/19 Comments/in /by
By Cyrus D. Mehta

When I first glanced at he Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, H.R. 140, introduced by Representative Stephen King (R-IA) on January 5, 2011, http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h140/show, I figured that it was not worth my time to even write about it. I read it once more, and it dawned upon me that I could have some fun commenting on it and highlighting its absurdity.

The granting of automatic citizenship to a child born in the US is rooted in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” A list of resources can be found on Bender’s Immigration Bulletin at http://bit.ly/f5pX7U. And here is a good policy policy piece from AILA, http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=34106 and a great blog with more resources, http://ijjblog.org/blog-mt/dan/2010/11/birthright_citizenship_under_t_1.html.

Nobody is attempting the extremely arduous task to amend the hallowed Fourteenth Amendment, although opponents of birthright citizenship are proposing a reinterpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” by denying the children of illegal immigrants and temporary residents from claiming US citizenship. Well over a century ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court held in no uncertain terms:

The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owning direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciles here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

H.R. 140 seeks to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which replicates the 14th amendment, by not just depriving the children of illegal immigrants from automatically becoming citizens, but by narrowly limiting birthright citizenship to a person born in the US to parents, one of whom is –

1) a citizen or national of the United States;
2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).

This bill, if enacted into law, would even deprive the child of a nonimmigrant parent from automatically becoming a US citizen who is lawfully in the US in H-1B status, and approved for permanent residence but for the fact that she is stuck in the employment-based preference backlogs for many years. What would be the status of such a child? H.R. 140 is silent. Would this poor child be rendered deportable the minute it is born by virtue of being an alien present in the US without being admitted or paroled under INA section 212(a)(6)(A)(i)? Or would the child be given a dependent H-4 status? What if the parents of the child have two different statuses – one on an H-1B visa and the other on a B-1 business visa? Will the child get the more solid H-4 status or the more transient B-2 status as a visitor for pleasure?

It is true that a diplomat, in accordance with Wong Kim Ark, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US as a diplomat enjoys immunity from US law, but a child of such a diplomat born in the US is at least deemed to be a permanent resident. See Matter of Huang, Interim Decision #1472 (BIA May 27, 1965). On the other hand, it is not so apparent that conferring some kind of legal status short of citizenship is the intent of H.R. 140, which seeks to keep children in the same illegal status as their parents if born in the US.

The only historic exceptions to those subject to the jurisdiction of the US are diplomats and enemies during the hostile occupation of a part of US territory. Congress even passed legislation to ensure that children of all Native Americans are US citizens. See INA section 301(b). An illegal immigrant is undoubtedly subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If he commits a crime, he will surely be prosecuted. He can sue and be sued in US courts, and Uncle Sam gleefully collects his taxes and his contributions to social security (even if he is unable to claim it later on). You cannot liken an immigrant who has entered the US without inspection with the objective of finding work to a member of a hostile force occupying a part of the US. When a hostile force occupies any part of the US, the laws of the US are no longer applicable in the occupied territory. Even a terrorist who enters the US in a nonimmigrant status, such as on an F-1 student visa with an ulterior motive to commit an act of terrorism, unlike a member of a hostile occupying force, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US as she can be convicted or treated as an enemy noncombatant, and if she gives birth to child here, the child ought to be a US citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Moreover, often times being legal or illegal is part of the same continuum. A thoroughly undocumented person, when placed in removal proceedings, can seek cancellation of removal under stringent criteria and become a permanent resident. Such a person whose visa has long since expired could get wrapped up in a romantic encounter with a US citizen, marry, and dramatically convert from illegal to permanent resident within a few months. At times, Congress bestows such permanent residency through section 245(i) or the LIFE Act, or a person can obtain Temporary Protected Status if a calamity were to befall her country. The following extract from the Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 (1982), which held that undocumented children could not be deprived of a public education:

To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in the country, or even become a citizen.

Under H.R. 140, one who is so unlucky to have been born a day before his parent adjusted to permanent resident status would be in some kind of immigration purgatory. The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, along with similar proposals from states to issue two types of birth certificates, is not just unconstitutional but is also shockingly absurd!