Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member ShockedinCalifornia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Supreme Ct review immig law: children of fathers vs. mothers

    Supreme Court to review immigration law that favors children of US mothers, over US fathers

    Associated Press Writer

    March 22, 2010 | 10:33 a.m.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — One of Ruben Flores-Villar's parents is an American. Unfortunately for him, it is his father and not his mother, a fact that has complicated Flores-Villar's attempts to acquire U.S. citizenship and avoid criminal charges for being in the United States illegally.

    Now, the Supreme Court is entering a curious corner of U.S. immigration law that applies only to children born outside the U.S. to one parent who is an American and one who is not. The law makes it easier for children whose mother is a citizen to become citizens themselves. Even after reform legislation in 1986, children of American fathers face higher hurdles claiming citizenship for themselves.

    The justices agreed Monday to hear Flores-Villar's appeal of his criminal conviction and consider whether a provision of immigration law unfairly discriminates on the basis of gender. The case will be argued in the fall.

    Flores-Villar, 35, was born in Tijuana, Mexico, but grew up in the San Diego area, in the care of his father and grandmother.

    When he sought U.S. citizenship in 2006 — to stave off criminal charges of being in the country illegally — U.S. immigration authorities turned him down. For people born before 1986, their U.S. citizen fathers had to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years, at least five of them after the age of 14. 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.

    Changes to immigration law made in 1986 reduced the total residency time for fathers to five years, only two of which had to be after the age of 14.

    By contrast, a child born in the United States, regardless of the parents' nationality, is a U.S. citizen, as is a child born abroad to two American citizens.

    Lower federal courts upheld Flores-Villar's conviction and rejected his discrimination claims. Flores-Villar has previously been deported at least five times since he was convicted of importing marijuana when he was 22, the government said in court papers.

    The Obama administration argued that the less stringent residency requirement in the 1986 law was one of several reasons for the court to stay out of the case.

    The new requirement "substantially eliminates the risk" that young fathers like Flores-Villar's will be unable to confer citizenship on their children, the government said.

    The court ruled on a related issue in 2001, holding that it was all right to require American fathers, but not mothers, of children born out of wedlock and abroad to get a court order of establishing paternity or swear to it under oath.

    The case is Flores-Villar, 09-5801. ... 6778.story

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Well hopefully, the Supreme Court will not make another dufus decision.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member uniteasone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    north carolina
    It would be nice to see the Supreme Court DEMAND the government to enforce current immigration laws!
    "When you have knowledge,you have a responsibility to do better"_ Paula Johnson

    "I did then what I knew to do. When I knew better,I did better"_ Maya Angelou

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts