Tag: US citizenship

Categories
Updates

Repealing Birthright Citizenship: Sensible or Ridiculous?

Repealing Birthright Citizenship: Sensible or Ridiculous?
Share this:
Repealing Birthright Citizenship: Sensible or Ridiculous?
Despite being in the U.S. Constitution’s, birthright citizenship has come under attack and is being ridiculously threatened with repeal.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution unequivocally states: “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.” For over a century, this constitutional guarantee has conferred citizenship on individuals born within U.S. territory, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status. Despite its clarity, birthright citizenship has recently come under attack, raising critical legal and ethical questions.

Can a Constitutional Amendment Be Repealed by Executive Order?

Today President Donald Trump signed an executive order repealing birthright citizenship. Legally, this claim warrants scrutiny. A constitutional provision cannot be overturned by executive order. To amend the Constitution requires a rigorous process: a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate, followed by ratification from three-fourths of the states.

Previous attempts to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants through state and federal legislation have consistently been deemed unconstitutional. Even if a Republican-controlled Congress were to pass such a law, it would undoubtedly face significant legal challenges in the courts, given its conflict with established constitutional protections.

A Misguided Approach to Illegal Immigration

Proponents of repealing birthright citizenship argue that it incentivizes illegal immigration. They believe withholding automatic citizenship from the children of undocumented immigrants could serve as a deterrent. Some extremists even frame the issue as a national security concern, suggesting the potential for exploitation by terrorists—an argument that strains credulity.

However, eliminating birthright citizenship is far from a viable solution. In fact, it could exacerbate the challenges posed by illegal immigration. Without birthright citizenship, children born to undocumented immigrants would lack legal status, creating a vulnerable, stateless population. These individuals, unable to fully participate in society, would face heightened risks of exploitation and involvement in criminal activity. Instead of addressing the root causes of illegal immigration, such a policy would compound the problem, leaving both individuals and communities worse off.

The Uphill Legal Battle Against the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment serves as a safeguard against arbitrary decisions by politicians about who deserves U.S. citizenship. Its protections extend to everyone born on American soil, ensuring equal treatment under the law. Repealing or undermining this foundational principle would not only provoke significant legal challenges but also carry far-reaching political and social consequences.

President Trump’s proposed repeal would face an uphill battle, requiring a constitutional amendment—an exceedingly rare and complex process. Beyond the procedural hurdles, such an effort would risk eroding the very values of inclusion and equality that underpin the Constitution.

A Counterproductive Proposal

The push to repeal birthright citizenship is not a solution but a diversion. It shifts focus away from addressing the systemic issues driving illegal immigration and instead targets one of the most fundamental principles of American identity. Far from deterring illegal immigration, this proposal would deepen existing challenges, creating a new underclass of individuals without legal recognition.

As a nation, we must carefully weigh the implications of such drastic measures. The debate over birthright citizenship is not just a legal issue but a moral one, reflecting the values we uphold as a society. Rather than dismantling a constitutional cornerstone, the focus should be on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the root causes of illegal immigration while preserving the rights and dignity of all individuals.

(Atty. Lourdes Tancinco is an immigration attorney and immigrant rights advocate based in the San Francisco Bay area and a partner at the Tancinco Law P.C., law firm established since 1992.  She is also a producer/host of Pusong Pinoy sa Amerika, an immigration law informational show aired on GMA Pinoy TV. She may be reached at law@tancinco.com, www.tancinco.com, facebook/tancincolaw, or at 1-888-930-0808)

Categories
Updates

10 years since DACA: Is there hope for Dreamers?

10 years since DACA…Is there hope for Dreamers?
Share this:

It has been 10 years since President Barack Obama enacted DACA or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals through an executive order.

The policy survived a Republican Administration and has been defended by the Supreme Court.

But in July 2021, a Texas court ruled the policy to be illegal. It is now under appeal while the government has been instructed to stop granting initial requests for DACA.

DACA was originally intended to only be a “stopgap measure”, but 10 years on, DACA is still not backed by any law that would allow its recipients – the Dreamers – for a path to citizenship, leaving hundreds of thousands of immigrants in limbo.

Without DACA, immigrant children who entered the United States who are now adults find it almost impossible to find work and education opportunities. They also face the threat of deportation.

President Biden should fully reinstate the DACA program and make it fairer and more accessible by modifying criteria based on age, residency, education, and past criminal activity.

What happened to legislation?

Different variations of a DREAM act have been introduced at the House and the Senate, but none have ever reached the President’s table.

Based on a 2020 Pew Research Center survey, 74% of U.S. adults say they favor a pathway to citizenship for young people brought to the U.S. illegally as children. The vast majority, 91%, of Democrats or those who are Democratic-leaning, support permanent residency for Dreamers, while 54% of Republicans or those who are Republican-leaning say the same.

But translating public support to legislation has been tricky.

President Biden himself pushed for the US Citizenship Act, which promised a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants and their families. However, it remains stuck in Congress, and analysts say it only has a slim chance of passage unless Biden offers a compromise.

President Biden’s deadline could well be the 2024 midterm elections, which has so far been predicted to deliver an upset to his party, further trimming down the chances for his immigration policy.

What now for DREAMERS?

For young immigrant Filipino Dreamers, there is always hope that this DACA program would become legislation and would provide a pathway to citizenship. So in the meantime, for those who were able to apply prior to the District Court injunction, you can continue to renew your employment authorization documents and work legally. For students, continue to pursue your studies to completion as the government will always prioritize highly skilled or professional workers for immigrant resident visas. There are States that do not ask about legal status for students to attend post secondary education, so it is advisable to pursue their studies if they can and explore opportunities when the right time comes.

Unfortunately, those who are no longer allowed to apply for DACA because of its limited eligibility, let us continue to lobby and advocate for the passage of legislation that will either extend the coverage of DACA to benefit more DREAMERS or a legislation that will make DACA a legislation with opportunity to become U.S. citizens.

Each case is different, however. For tailored legal advice, always seek professional help from a legal counsel.

To push for legislation, call your respective lawmakers and urge them to support a Dream Act that will provide resident permanent status and citizenship to all undocumented young immigrants.

Categories
Global Pinoy

Use of certificate of loss of nationality allowed after renunciation of US citizenship

Share this:

A naturalized US citizen who makes a decision to relinquish US citizenship should understand that this matter involves a process. The completion of the official renunciation is not immediate.

Accomplishing, signing and submission of the required consular forms are just the start of a process and there is a time period required for its approval to be an effective renunciation.

In the same way that there are steps to take in applying for US citizenship, there are also certain steps one must take to renounce US citizenship.

An immigrant wishing to be naturalized to become a US citizen must wait until his oath-taking in order to be officially considered one.

In the same manner, an individual who wishes to renounce citizenship or a renunciant is considered to have effectively done so only after the Department of State approves the certificate of loss of nationality.

The naturalization application currently takes some four to six months before the applicant officially becomes a US citizen. For renunciation, the process varies approximately from four months to a year depending on how fast the Department of State issues its final approval on the loss of citizenship.

Pending the oath-taking ceremony, a naturalization applicant who passed the interview and submitted all the application forms is still considered a Filipino citizen and may still use the “green card” for purposes of travel.

In the same manner, the individual who voluntarily renounces US citizenship by executing a sworn statement before the consular officer is allowed to use the US passport pending his/her approval of the application for renunciation by the Department of State.

The use of travel documents as a US citizen while the application for renunciation is pending is still considered valid by the Department of State. In fact, there are specific instructions on the Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1229) on the use of passport even after the acts of renunciation.

The US consular officer after receiving the signed forms of renunciation is specifically instructed not to cancel the US passport right away but rather they are mandated to keep the passport in the safe place until the certificate of loss of nationality is approved and returned by the Department of State.

During this period, should the renunciant have any need to travel to the United States, he or she can request that the consular officer return the US passport to him/her but only for the specific travel. When the certificate of loss of nationality is approved by the Department of State, the renunciant will then be called to appear before the consular officer and surrender the US passport.

This is the reason why Sen. Grace Poe was still able to use a US passport during her travel despite her act of renunciation. She may have the intent to renounce it but since there is a process she had to undergo before completing the renunciation, nothing is really final until approval by the Department of State.

Taking the oath of allegiance completes the naturalization process. In renunciation, the final act of approval by the Department of State completes the renunciation. However, unlike naturalization, renunciation is retroactive to the date of the voluntary act of renunciation and not the date the certificate of loss of nationality is received from the Department of State.