Nguyen v. INS

Last updated
Nguyen v. INS
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 9, 2001
Decided June 11, 2001
Full case nameTuan Anh Nguyen and Joseph Boulais v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Docket no. 99-2071
Citations533 U.S. 53 ( more )
121 S. Ct. 2053; 150 L. Ed. 2d 115
Case history
PriorAppeal from BIA rejected, 208 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2000); cert. granted, 530 U.S. 1305(2000)
SubsequentPetition for writ of habeas corpus rejected, 400 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2005)
Holding
A law providing narrower standards for United States citizenship for a child born abroad out of wedlock to an American father, as opposed to an American mother, was justified by important government interests and did not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas
ConcurrenceScalia, joined by Thomas
DissentO'Connor, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V; Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, sec. 309 (8 U.S.C. § 1409)

Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of laws relating to U.S. citizenship at birth for children born outside the United States, out of wedlock, to an American parent. The Court declined to overturn a more restrictive citizenship requirement applying to a foreign-born child of an American father and a non-American mother who was not married to the father, as opposed to a child born to an American mother under similar circumstances. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

Section 309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as amended (codified as section 1409 of Title 8 of the United States Code) deals with U.S. citizenship for children born outside the U.S., out of wedlock, to an American parent. If a child is born abroad, out of wedlock, to an American mother, the child automatically acquires U.S. citizenship at birth, provided the mother had "previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year". An illegitimate foreign-born child of an American father and an alien mother, on the other hand, is recognized as a U.S. citizen only if a much more complex and stringent set of conditions are met: the father's paternity must be convincingly established prior to the child's 18th birthday, and the father must also agree in writing to provide financial support to the child until he or she reaches age 18. [3]

Tuan Anh Nguyen was born in Vietnam to an American father and a Vietnamese mother who were not married. He moved to the United States with his father and became a legal permanent resident of the U.S. at age six, but his father did not attempt to establish any claim of U.S. citizenship for the boy. At age 22, Nguyen pleaded guilty to sexual assault; this made him subject to deportation based on his criminal record. [4]

Nguyen's father obtained evidence of parentage in an attempt to have his son recognized as a U.S. citizen, but his efforts were rejected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) because 8 U.S.C.   § 1409 required any such evidence to have been presented before the child's 18th birthday. Nguyen—together with his father—mounted a court challenge to the law, claiming that 8 U.S.C. § 1409 was unconstitutionally discriminatory because it imposed stricter requirements for a foreign-born illegitimate child of an American father than would have applied if his American parent had been his mother. [5]

Holding

The Supreme Court rejected Nguyen's arguments and upheld the law denying him citizenship, holding by a 5–4 majority that 8 U.S.C. § 1409 was consistent with the equal protection principle, applied through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. In the opinion of the Court (written by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy), the Court ruled that although the statute was discriminatory, "it serve[d] important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed [were] substantially related to the achievement of those objectives". [1] The Court found that Congress' decision to impose different requirements on unmarried fathers and unmarried mothers was "based on the significant difference between their respective relationships to the potential citizen at the time of birth". [6] [7] First, the Court noted that whereas a mother's biological relationship to her child is easily verified and documented, the same cannot be said of the father. [8] Second, the Court concluded that the law was designed "to ensure that the child and citizen parent have some demonstrated opportunity to develop... a relationship... that consists of the real, everyday ties that provide a connection between child and citizen parent and, in turn, the United States"—something that was inherent in the case of an American mother and her child, but not inevitable in the case of a single father. [9]

Even though Nguyen's father had submitted DNA evidence proving the father-son relationship, the Court noted that "scientific proof of biological paternity does nothing, by itself, to ensure contact between father and child during the child's minority". [10] In the end, the Court held that Congress was "well within its authority in refusing, absent proof of at least the opportunity for the development of a relationship between citizen parent and child, to commit this country to embracing a child as a citizen". [10]

A concurring opinion by Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas proposed that the Supreme Court simply did not have the power of "conferral of citizenship on a basis other than that prescribed by Congress". [11] The dissent (written by Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) concluded that the INS "[had] not shown an exceedingly persuasive justification for the sex-based classification... because it [had] failed to establish at least that the classification substantially relate[d] to the achievement of important government objectives", and on that basis the minority would have ruled in Nguyen's favor. [12]

An earlier case, Miller v. Albright , 523 U.S. 420 (1998), suggested a similar conclusion to that given in Nguyen v. INS, but had failed to support it by a clear majority. [13]

Aftermath

After the Supreme Court decision, the INS attempted to deport Nguyen, but was unsuccessful because of a Vietnamese government policy barring the repatriation of convicts from the United States. [14] [15]

Nguyen and his father sought to reopen the deportation proceedings, and when this effort was unsuccessful, appealed to the courts again, claiming that the refusal by the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen Nguyen's case deprived him of due process of law and denied the father's right to enjoy his son's companionship. This appeal was rejected by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005. [16]

Related Research Articles

Nationality is a legal identification of a person in international law, establishing the person as a subject, a national, of a sovereign state. It affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state against other states.

Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946 Canadian 1946 citizenship legislation

The Canadian Citizenship Act was a statute passed by the Parliament of Canada in 1946 which created the legal status of Canadian citizenship. The Act defined who were Canadian citizens, separate and independent from the status of the British subject and repealed earlier Canadian legislation relating to Canadian nationals and citizens as sub-classes of British subject status.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Any child born in the United States is a US citizen from birth, with the sole exception of children born to a parent or parents with diplomatic immunity, since such parent is not a "subject to the US law" as the decision requires.

"Anchor baby" is a term used to refer to a child born to a non-citizen mother in a country that has birthright citizenship which will therefore help the mother and other family members gain legal residency. In the U.S., the term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen under jus soli and the rights guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The term is also often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States. A similar term, "passport baby", has been used in Canada for children born through so-called "maternity" or "birth tourism".

United States nationality law History and regulations of American citizenship

United States nationality law details the conditions in which a person holds United States nationality. In the United States, nationality is typically obtained through provisions in the U.S. Constitution, various laws, and international agreements. Citizenship is a right, not a privilege. While the domestic documents often use citizenship and nationality interchangeably, nationality refers to the legal means in which a person obtains a national identity and formal membership in a nation and citizenship refers to the relationship held by nationals who are also citizens.

Portuguese nationality law History and regulations of Portuguese citizenship

Portuguese nationality law refers to the laws of Portugal concerning nationality. Article 4 of the Fundamental Principles of the Constitution of Portugal refers to Portuguese nationality and establishes that a separate law regulates how it is acquired and lost. Portuguese nationality is generally acquired on the principle of jus sanguinis (descent). In other words, nationality is conferred primarily by birth to a Portuguese parent, irrespective of place of birth.

The proposed Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 was a bill which, if enacted into law, would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit automatic citizenship at birth to apply only to a child born in the United States who: (1) was born in wedlock to parents either of whom was then a U.S. citizen or national or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who maintained such residence; or (2) was born out of wedlock to a mother who was then a U.S. citizen or national or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who maintained such residence. The bill would have accomplished this objective by defining children not falling into the above categories as not being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus not entitled to automatic citizenship via the Fourteenth Amendment which section 1 reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Birth tourism

Birth tourism is the practice of traveling to another country for the purpose of giving birth in that country. The main reason for birth tourism is to obtain citizenship for the child in a country with birthright citizenship. Such a child is sometimes called an "anchor baby" if their citizenship is intended to help their parents obtain permanent residency in the country. Other reasons for birth tourism include access to public schooling, healthcare, sponsorship for the parents in the future, or even circumvention of China's two-child policy. Popular destinations include the United States and Canada. Another target for birth tourism is Hong Kong, where some mainland Chinese citizens travel to give birth to gain right of abode for their children.

Birthright citizenship in the United States is United States citizenship acquired by a person automatically, by operation of law. This takes place in two situations: by virtue of the person's birth within United States territory or because one or both of their parents is a US citizen. Birthright citizenship contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization.

Lost Canadians

Lost Canadians are individuals who have believed themselves to be Canadian citizens or to be entitled to citizenship, but who are not/were not officially considered citizens due to particular and often obscure aspects or interpretations of Canadian nationality law. Although these individuals had strong, undeniable connections to Canada, they were either never actually Canadian citizens throughout their entire life, or else had Canadian citizenship and lost it unknowingly through certain provisions of the Citizenship Act.

Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. This decision deals primarily with the civil rights of illegitimate children, specifically in regards to their ability to sue on a deceased parent's behalf. It held that the right of recovery may not be denied merely because a person is the illegitimate child of the deceased because such a law would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case resulting in a ruling that a particular section of a Texas Penal Code did not apply to mothers with out-of-wedlock children. The case was argued on December 6, 1972 and decided on March 5, 1973. Linda R. S., the petitioner and appellant, was the mother of the out of wedlock child. Richard D., the respondent and appellee, was the father of the out of wedlock child.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties."

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequent to that citizenship.

Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of laws relating to U.S. citizenship at birth for children born outside the United States, out of wedlock, to an American parent. The Court declined to overturn a more restrictive citizenship requirement applying to an illegitimate foreign-born child of an American father, as opposed to a child born to an American mother under similar circumstances.

Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994

The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, Pub.L. 103–416, 108 Stat. 4305, enacted October 25, 1994, was an act by the United States Congress "to amend title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes in the laws relating to nationality and naturalization." Introduced by Romano Mazzoli, the act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act by allowing the acquisition of United States citizenship from either parent for persons born abroad to parents, only one of whom is a United States citizen.

Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court family law case which argued that a New York law, which allowed unwed mothers, but not unwed fathers, a veto over the adoption of that couple's children, was discriminatory.

Johann Breyer was a onetime SS-Totenkopfverbände concentration and death camp guard and retired tool and die maker whom the United States Department of Justice Office of Special Investigations (OSI) unsuccessfully attempted to denaturalize and deport for his teenage service in the SS. His was considered the "most arcane and convoluted litigation in OSI history", owing to the convergence of three unusual legal factors in the case:

Deportation of Americans from the United States is the wrongful expulsion, return or extradition of Americans to other countries, often after being convicted of a crime. These individuals in removal proceedings include Americans by birth and legal immigrants that were naturalized under 8 U.S.C. § 1427 or admitted as nationals of the United States under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. A U.S. citizen cannot legally be deported, and thus can return to the United States at any time.

Deportations of Korean adoptees from the United States are an uncommon phenomenon, but have been cause for controversy over many years. Due to the institutional and parental failure to grant and apply for adopted children's citizenship, South Koreans adopted by American families prior to 1983 were left vulnerable to deportations, and many suffered from a lack of access to other resources American citizens have.

References

  1. 1 2 Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 60–61.
  2. ↑ "Parent's Sex May Be Factor in Citizenship, Court Rules; Justices Uphold Law Favoring U.S. Mothers of Out-of-Wedlock Children". Washington Post. June 12, 2001. The government may make it more difficult for children born out of wedlock overseas to U.S. citizen fathers to claim citizenship than for the children of American mothers, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, rejecting a claim that the different treatment violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
  3. ↑ Nguyen, 533 U.S. at 59.
  4. ↑ Nguyen, 533 U.S. at 57.
  5. ↑ Nguyen, 533 U.S. at 57–58.
  6. ↑ Nguyen, 533 U.S. at 62.
  7. ↑ Washington Post (June 12, 2001). "By a vote of 5 to 4, the court held that, in adopting different rules depending on whether the mother or father was a U.S. citizen, Congress was attempting to ensure that such children have a clear biological and social attachment to their U.S. citizen parent, and therefore was engaging in a constitutionally acceptable form of gender discrimination."
  8. ↑ Nguyen, 533 U.S. at 64.
  9. ↑ Nguyen, 533 U.S. at 64–65.
  10. 1 2 Nguyen, 533 U.S. at 67.
  11. ↑ Nguyen, 533 U.S. at 73.
  12. ↑ Nguyen, 533 U.S. at 74ff.
  13. ↑ Nguyen, 533 U.S. at 58.
  14. ↑ Tomizuka, Lica (Summer 2002). "The Supreme Court's Blind Pursuit of Outdated Definitions of Familial Relationships in Upholding the Constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. 1409 in Nguyen v. INS". Law and Inequality. 20: 275 n24.
  15. ↑ "Sex Bias in Citizenship Law Challenged". Ms. Magazine. January 17, 2001. Vietnam refused to accept the return of Nguyen and he now faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life in a U.S. deportation facility.
  16. ↑ Nguyen v. Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 400 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2005).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.