Administration plans change in immigration rule

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I do agree that mass deportation is very expensive. However, what I do not like with that DREAM act is that it gives backdoor amnesty to illegals plus PRIVILEGES that even regular citizens and green card cannot get. Another thing, why aren't there ANY relaxation of rules for children of US fathers (and alien mothers) born abroad. In a study conducted by ACA in the 1980s, 10% of children of US citizens were denied US citizenship because of very "ancient" technicalities

Google Miller vs Albright, Nguyen vs INS, Flores villar case

Illegals and Tourists have it easier to have a US citizen child just by giving birth in the US while a US citizen stationed or assigned abroad pay expensive fees and are even uncertain that his child will have US citizenship. Yet people who are so vocal on "immigration" reform ignore this and simply do not care

Imagine a US citizen not having a US citizen biological child.

I think what the government should do is drop the privilege on the amnesty and replace it with heavy fine, just as most countries do with their own "undocumented aliens"

[Susita 175]

Another thing, why aren't there ANY relaxation of rules for children of US fathers (and alien mothers) born abroad. In a study conducted by ACA in the 1980s, 10% of children of US citizens were denied US citizenship because of very "ancient" technicalities

That's crummy. I didn't even know that.

[Kang 22]

That's crummy. I didn't even know that.

to make things worse, it is already that bad for marital children but worse for non-marital children born to a foreign mother born abroad.

to complicate things, transmission of citizenship abroad has been changing and most are not retroactive and basing on the "progress", the state department has been stricter and stricter especially for non-marital child with a foreign mother. Prior to November 1986, child support before the child was 18 wasn't mandatory. In the 1986 law, it became mandatory. In short, if the father did not have a written child support BEFORE the child turned 18, there is ZERO chance of the child being a US citizen if she/he was born

There is also issue with residency requirements. Just look up the Flores-Villar case where because his father was 16 when he was born and his father impossibly meeting the requirement of 5 years residence after the age of 14, is denied US citizenship. It is nice to note that for a non-marital who has an American mother and foreign father, one year continuous residency is required. With many countries in the world still prohibiting their women on passing citizenship to their non-marital child and with many US troops stationed outside the US, it is safe to say that there are many children of US citizens that are stateless

Yet the plight of these children are often excluded in immigration reform backdoor amnesty calls.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Kang

[Harsh_77 716]

So this is Obama's way of getting the Dream Act that much closer. It pays to be an illegal these days.

Obama administration is more worried about illegal then they are about legal resd and citizens....

[Kang 22]

Obama administration is more worried about illegal then they are about legal resd and citizens....

Let's all ban legal immigration and start immigrating our wives, children and parents illegally. Let's book them a tourist visa to Northern Mexico then cross our loved one to the borders. Saves us time and cost. We all have to wait for mass backdoor amnesty

[Kang 22]

What has the administration done about these?

http://ncfm.org/2011/06/news/courts-cases/u-s-supreme-court-rules-fathers-are-inferior/

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Fathers are Inferior

June 14, 2011

By harry crouch

What happened to our government and Courts? They were taken over by radical feminists with no concept of right or wrong.

In an unbelievable decision the U.S. Supreme Court’s 4-4 vote yesterday denied a San Diego man’s rightful claim that men are treated disparately due to a gender-based standard in immigration law.

The tie vote affirmed a 9th U.S. Court of Appeals judgment that the immigration law’s higher standard for determining citizenship for the children of men than it does for children of women is constitutional.

Justice Elena Kagan was recused from the case, apparently due to her related work at the Justice Department.

Petitioner Ruben Flores-Villar was born in Mexico but raised in the United States by his father, a U.S. citizen. He challenged the gender-based standard to overturn his conviction for illegally re-entering the country. Flores-Villar v. United States , 095801 .

Thanks to the Supreme Court, Ruben, is not an American. Why, because he has a father who is U.S. citizen? Yet, if his mother had been a U.S. citizen her citizenship would extend to Ruben. If that’s not gender discrimination, discrimination against American fathers, discrimination against their children, and a blatant denial of equal treatment then what is?

The Court Disses Fathers

Published: June 18, 2011

Recommend

Twitter

Linkedin

Sign In to E-Mail

Print

Reprints

Share

Children born outside the country to an unmarried American parent are considered American citizens at birth if the parent lived in the United States before the child was born. For a mother, the required period of residence is one year. For a father, it is 10 years, five of them after he turns 14. Fathers must also prove parenthood and pledge to support the child.

Related

Times Topic: Citizenship and Naturalization

In a decision based on an outmoded stereotype that fathers are less committed parents, the Supreme Court let this obvious discrimination stand last week when it affirmed a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Flores-Villar v. the United States.

Ruben Flores-Villar was born in Mexico to a Mexican mother and an American father who were not married. His mother remained in Mexico, and Ruben was raised by his father in San Diego. His father could not pass on his citizenship because he was 16 at Ruben’s birth so could not have lived for five years in the United States after he turned 14.

The Ninth Circuit denied Ruben’s bid for citizenship, saying that it is constitutional to make it harder for an unmarried father to pass along citizenship because a father’s relationship to the child “is not so easily established” and a mother’s is “verifiable from the birth itself.”

Congress has already jettisoned such outmoded principles when it comes to married couples. From 1790 to 1934, married American fathers — as “heads” of their family — could pass along citizenship to their foreign-born children, not mothers. A law ended that discrimination.

For the last 30 years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down laws treating men and women differently. The court’s decision in this case was by a 4-to-4 vote, with Justice Elena Kagan recused. The one-sentence ruling does not say how the justices divided, but it is likely that if Justice Kagan had taken part, the court would have outlawed this form of discrimination. That would have been the right choice. The days when fathers were assumed to be minor players in parenting are long over.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19sun3.html

Are U.S. Immigration Laws Biased Against Unmarried Dads?

1 year ago

Text Size

000

Bonnie Erbé

Bonnie Erbé

Columnist

Author Bio »

Contact Author »

Subscribe :

Federal law banned gender discrimination in the workplace in the 1970s, and for most purposes, it's illegal outside the workplace, too.

But a case that came before the Supreme Court this week shows gender discrimination still exists in immigration law in terms of residency requirements for unmarried fathers versus mothers.

The Sacramento Bee describes the case as follows: "The issue came before the court in the case of a deported drug dealer who was born in Tijuana, Mexico, in 1974 of a Mexican mother, but raised in San Diego by his American father. When Ruben Flores-Villar was about be deported to Mexico for the fourth time in 2006 for selling marijuana, he raised a new objection. He said he should be deemed a U.S. citizen because his father was 16 at the time of birth and an American citizen."

Flores-Villar's suit argues he has been unfairly denied U.S. citizenship because of gender bias in U.S. immigration laws.

Current federal law grants citizenship to any child born to an unmarried, foreign-born mother as long as the mother has lived in the United States for at least a year. But the child's unmarried father must have been in the United States for five years for the child to gain citizenship.

The resolution of the case could have widespread impact. It has tentacles that reach into two highly inflammatory issues in American law: citizenship for non-American-born children and gender discrimination. Conferring U.S. citizenship on any child other than one born to American parents on American soil is in and of itself a highly controversial topic that dominates some political debates in high-immigration states.

On top of this, federal law makes this bizarre distinction between the length of residency for an unmarried father versus that for an unmarried mother. The reason for the discrepancy lies in a tangled mass of changes made over time by Congress to immigration law. Those changes date back to the 1950s, when it was assumed all children were more likely to be raised by their mothers than their fathers. Even though that is still true, the gap is narrowing and more fathers are either primary caretakers or single parents.

But in Flores-Villar's case, there is yet another wrinkle in the law. According to the L.A. Times:

"For people born before 1986, their American fathers had to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years, at least five of them after the age of 14, in order for their citizenship to be passed on. Flores-Villar's father could not meet the second part of that requirement because he was only 16 when his son was born. American mothers need only have lived in the U.S. continuously for a year before the birth of a child. The 1986 changes to immigration law reduced the total residency requirement for fathers to five years, two of which after the age of 14."

This case is made more interesting by two additional twists. First, newly sworn-in Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the decision because she worked on the case while she was at the Justice Department. That will hinder the liberal wing of the court's attempt to drop the five-year residency requirement for the unwed father down to one year, as it is for the unmarried mother.

The other twist is that, according to the Los Angeles Times, "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested the right remedy in this case may be to make it just as hard for unwed mothers to pass on their citizenship to a foreign-born child. "The remedy for an equal protection violation is to treat everybody the same . . . "

Justice Roberts might as well explode a nuclear bomb at the headquarters of The National Council of La Raza as hand down a decision along those lines. But he sure would expand his following among those want to limit immigration.

Filed Under: Foreign Policy, Woman Up, International, Supreme Court, Immigration, Mexico

Tagged: Citizenship rights, Elena Kagan, Federal anti-descrimination laws, John Roberts, Ruben Flores-Villar, Sex descrimination

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/12/are-u-s-immigration-laws-biased-against-unmarried-dads/

COULD THIS RATHER DIRECTED TO FOREIGN WOMEN AND HALF AMERICAN 'FOREIGN' CHILD THAN US FATHERS? Talk about 'racism' now.

Edited January 10, 2012 by Kang