On Thursday, the Supreme Court made it more difficult for the government to strip a naturalized American’s citizenship simply because he or she lied during the naturalization proceedings. The case, Maslenjak v. United States, concerns an ethnic Serbian woman who, fleeing war and prosecution from Bosnia in the 1990s, was granted refugee status in the U.S. in 1999. In 2007, she became a citizen, despite lying about her husband’s service in the Bosnian Serb military.

The court’s unanimous decision largely hinged on the standard on which the case was argued and ruled on by the lower courts. Namely, that any sort of lie, no matter its causal link or lack there of to the granting of citizenship, is enough to revoke a naturalized American’s citizenship. That is how the Justice Department’s lawyer, Robert Parker, argued the case. Those were the grounds on which a district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled. Both sided with the government.

But the Supreme Court fundamentally disagreed that a naturalized citizen’s rights could be revoked based on an immaterial falsehood. It sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit, allowing it to be reviewed on a different standard.

“We hold that the government must establish that an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the unanimous opinion. She continued:

When the illegal act is a false statement, that means demonstrating that the defendant lied about facts that would have mattered to an immigration official, because they would have justified denying naturalization or would predictably have led to other facts warranting that result.

The story begins in 1999, when Divna Maslenjak was granted refugee status. An ethnic Serb fleeing what was then known as Bosnia, Maslenjak said Muslims would mistreat her and her husband because of their ethnicity. At the same time Serbs would punish them because her husband, she claimed, evaded military service. In 2007, Maslenjak and her husband were granted citizenship.

It turns out, however, that Maslenjak did indeed lie about her husband’s circumstances; he served in a Bosnian Serb military unit–one that was accused of committing war crimes. A district court judge ruled that Maslenjak’s falsehood warranted a revocation of her and her husband’s citizenships. The Sixth Circuit, in April 2016, agreed. Their citizenship was revoked, and both Maslenjak and her husband were deported to Serbia.

The Supreme Court’s decision vacates the lower courts’ rulings. In unanimously rejecting the government’s assertion that any lie, regardless of its relevance to citizenship, could lead to revocation, the court strengthened protections for naturalized Americans.

In April, during the arguments for the case, the justices seemed perplexed at the government’s position. In fact, Chief Justice John Roberts confessed to a past misdeed to make a point. “Some time ago, outside the statute of limitations, I drove 60 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone,” he said.

If on the citizenship form he answered “no” to the question of whether he had ever committed an offense, Roberts asked Parker, “20 years after I was naturalized as a citizen, you can knock on my door and say, ‘Guess what, you’re not an American citizen after all?” Parker continued to baffle the justices, saying, “If we can prove that you deliberately lied in answering that question, then yes.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Furthers Protections for Naturalized U.S. Citizens appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a federal immigration law that made it easier for children of U.S. citizen mothers to obtain citizenship than children of U.S. citizen fathers.

Per the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the citizenship of children born outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and one parent who is a citizen of another nation is decided differently depending on whether the U.S. citizen parent is the child’s mother or father. A child of a U.S. citizen mother would automatically become a U.S. citizen as long as the mother had lived in the U.S. for one year. However, a child of a U.S. citizen father would only automatically become a U.S. citizen if the father had lived in the U.S. for five years before the child was born, and if at least two of those years had occurred after the father had turned 14.

In an 8-0 decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, the Court held that such a “gender line” was “incompatible” with the Equal Protections Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not contribute because he had not yet been confirmed as a justice in November 2016 when the court heard the case.

Luis Ramón Morales-Santana has lived in the U.S. since he was 13. When Morales-Santana was born, the requirement was that fathers needed to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years before the child was born, five of which had to be after the age of 14–as opposed to the current requirement of five years in the U.S., including two after age 14.

His father, José Morales, moved to the Dominican Republic just 20 days before turning 19 and, therefore, did not meet the earlier requirement of living in the U.S. for at least five years after turning 14. Without his father satisfying that requirement, Morales-Santana was not considered a U.S. citizen. The U.S. government attempted to remove Morales-Santana from the country in 2000 based on several criminal convictions.

Morales-Santana asserted that the U.S. government’s refusal to grant him citizenship violated the Equal Protections Clause because it hinged on gender based classification of his parentage. Had Morales-Santana’s mother been a U.S. citizen and lived in the country for one year, he would have already been considered a citizen.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion of the court in which she explained that laws granting or denying benefits based on the sex of a parent are subject to “heightened scrutiny.”

Before 1940, Ginsburg said, standards for citizenship of children born abroad were rooted in two gender based assumptions. “In marriage, husband is dominant, wife subordinate; unwed mother is the natural and sole guardian of a nonmarital child,” Ginsburg wrote, describing those assumptions. Children of married parents derived their citizenship status from their fathers, while children of unwed parents derived their citizenship status from their mothers.

The Nationality Act of 1940 eliminated fathers’ sole control over children’s citizenship, instead allowing either married U.S. citizen mothers or fathers to pass citizenship on to their child. The Act also codified unwed mothers’ ability to pass citizenship on to their child, but did not do so for unwed fathers since mothers were regarded as children’s sole guardians in cases in which the parents were not married.

The U.S. government argued that when a child is born to unwed parents, the mother is the only legally recognized parent at the child’s birth; the father is acknowledged after the fact. Ginsburg explained that, according to the U.S. government’s argument, the lengthier residency requirement for U.S. citizen fathers is warranted due to the “‘competing national influence’ of the alien mother.”

However, Ginsburg wrote that the assumption is based on “the long-held view that unwed fathers care little about, indeed are strangers to, their children.” Such a characterization, she says, “no longer passes equal protection inspection.”

The Court held that the gender-based distinction violated the equal protection clause, but did not decide whether the requirement for U.S. citizen mothers should be applied equally to fathers.

Ginsburg said Congress had made an exception for unwed mothers, but not for unwed fathers. Therefore, it is up to Congress, not the Court, to decide whether the standard for unwed mothers should be extended to unwed fathers.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rules Gender-Based Citizenship Requirement is Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

“America First,” President Donald Trump’s ubiquitous campaign slogan, is apparently contagious. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull proposed a set of rules on Thursday that would make it tougher for refugees and immigrants to become Australian citizens. And last week, Turnbull announced plans to raise the barriers for migrants hoping to come to Australia for high-skilled jobs on a temporary work visa.

Among the citizenship rules the prime minister proposed on Thursday is an “Australian values” test, more stringent requirements for the citizenship test, and a four-year wait period. Hopeful citizens would also be expected to have a greater knowledge of English than currently required. In a statement, Turnbull explained his crack down on migration:

“We must ensure that our citizenship program is conducted in our national interest,” he said. “Membership of the Australian family is a privilege and should be granted to those who support our values, respect our laws and want to work hard by integrating and contributing to an even better Australia.”

Australia is a multicultural bastion, often overshadowed by the “melting pots” of America, Canada, and other Western nations. In fact, 27 percent of the population is foreign-born, double the foreign-born rate in the U.S. and England. Australia is represented by migrants from 200 countries. The new rules, which must be approved by parliament, would stiffen an already stringent citizenship process.

For instance, prospective citizens must already have solid enough English skills to take the citizenship test, which is only offered in English. Under the proposed new rules, three test failures would spell the end of an immigrant’s or refugee’s chance at citizenship. According to Australia’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 102,029 people took the citizenship test between 2015-2016. Nearly 3,500 people failed it over three times. Prospective citizens must also sign an “Australian values statement.” Here is an excerpt:

Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good.

Around the world, populism and nationalism are on the rise. France may elect the populist, far-right firebrand Marine Le Pen. England left the European Union. Turkey’s president just effectively cemented his hold on power until 2029, a move likely to alienate Turkey from the West. But until now, at least to the outside world, Australia seemed to be eluding the populist trend. But some analysts see Turnbull’s proposals not as a turn toward nationalism, but as a way to placate Australia’s populists.

“These new laws are about trying to keep traditional coalition supporters from turning to the far-right parties,” Haydon Manning, a political analyst in Adelaide told Bloomberg. “Turnbull will be aware that he doesn’t have much to offer voters in the budget because the coffers are bare, so this is a way he can show that he’s still thinking about them and addressing their concerns about jobs and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull Proposes a More Difficult Path to Citizenship appeared first on Law Street.

Alicia Machado, Miss Universe 1996, is speaking up for minorities and speaking out against Donald Trump. Her message? Become an American so you can vote against Trump this November.

In the past month Machado has come forward about Trump’s horrendous behavior toward her as Miss Universe. Apparently, Trump made fun of her weight and nationality repeatedly after the pageant, calling her names like “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeper” in response to her weight gain following the competition. At the time, Machado said it pushed her into bouts of anorexia and bulimia for years as well as sparking her depression. Trump even admits to pushing Machado to lose weight after her reign as Miss Universe, not to mention the dozens of other Miss Universe contestants he reportedly shamed.

In response to Trump’s bullying, Machado has applied to become a U.S. citizen to vote against him in favor of the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, this fall. Clinton tweeted at Machado, congratulating her on attaining citizenship and sharing a video of the former Miss Universe talking about Trump:

Congratulations on becoming a U.S. citizen, Alicia. Enjoy casting that vote. https://t.co/jewmwZrrOA

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 20, 2016

The video includes footage of Trump forcing Machado to workout with the media watching her. It also shows him shaming the then-19-year-old for her weight:

She weighed 118 pounds or 117 pounds and she went up to 160 or 70 pounds so this is somebody that likes to eat.

The video ends with a clip of Machado laughing as the interviewer asks if she will be voting for Trump this fall.

Machado has finally decided to speak up. She claims to have realized a few weeks ago that the only way to stop Trump from reaching the White House is to gain citizenship and vote against him, as well as to urge members of her community to do the same. Machado sees Trump as the next Hugo Chavez and wants to put a stop to his play for power.

Her commitment to increasing awareness of Trump’s Chavez-like ways in the Latino community is backed by many national organizations. Machado met with immigration advocacy groups, including People for the American way and Casa in Action, recently to help their cause. An ad the two groups are releasing aims to play up Trump’s anti-immigrant statements to showcase why Latinos should vote for Hillary.

The video explains how a Trump presidency will cause our society to become more intolerant and hateful. It also showcases several of the inappropriate names Trump has used to describe immigrants. Machado stands firmly with the message of this video, saying that “everybody in America needs to open their eyes” and that “we don’t need more divisions in this country.” Plus, the video is almost entirely in Spanish to appeal to Latino voters.

Machado has taken the hits from Trump with dignity, choosing to see his insults about her heritage (calling her Miss Housekeeper) as honorable because of how hard immigrant housekeepers and nannies work. She claims she is not going to flee the country if he is elected president because, “this is a great country with wonderful politics and amazing benefits, and this imbecile won’t be able to change that, we are stronger than Trump.” What she wants people to know is that:

This country does not deserve a Chávez. And that’s what Trump is…a demagogue, racist, egocentric, misogynist, demeaning man, who lacks cultural and political knowledge. This country does not deserve that.

As a result of her resilience and well known name, Machado has the potential to influence lots of voters. Seems like Trump better watch who he insults, or he could see his campaign quickly lose traction.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Miss Universe 1996 Speaks Out Against Trump appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration reform is a consistent topic of discussion that plagues Congress and splits our country down the middle. Thousands of immigrants flock to the United States. The reasons range from escaping persecution to looking for a better life for one’s family or gaining access to higher education. In 2013, an immigration reform bill entitled The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigrant Modernization Act of 2013 was introduced. Authors of the bill intended to address illegal immigrants and border security but it never ended up going anywhere even though the bill will probably be remembered as one of the defining political topics of 2013. Read on to learn about the Immigration Reform Bill, what it entailed, and the arguments for and against it.

What was the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013?

The bill’s stated purpose was to address the issues of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living within the United States’ borders “by finally committing the resources needed to secure the border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program for individuals who are currently here.”

Overall the bill was expansive and covered a number of issues, including paths to legality for illegal immigrants, border enforcement, and aiding those illegal immigrants who did not have autonomy in breaking the law–mostly children. The bill would have instituted what were called “triggers” that essentially make sure that in order to provide resources for undocumented immigrants, enforcement also needs to be stepped up. That was to ensure that the compromise that this bill created was held up on both sides of the aisle.

The bill was widely regarded as a compromise. It was created by the “Gang of Eight“–eight leading Senators spread out over both parties: Charles Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). President Barack Obama also admitted it was very much a compromise; after it passed in the Senate he stated:

The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise. By definition, nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I – and many others – have repeatedly laid out.

While the bill passed the Senate in June 2013, it didn’t pass the House of Representatives. The Republicans in the House of Representatives announced that they had no intention of voting on it. The inaction on the House’s part may be part of the reason that President Obama announced his executive actions on immigration in November 2014.

What were the arguments in favor of the bill?

It’s no secret that there are many undocumented immigrants in the United States. But many of them make substantive contributions to our nation–they pay taxes and participate in the economy just as citizens do. However, because of their undocumented status, they live in a constant state of fear. This is especially true for the children of undocumented immigrants–morally it seems wrong to punish those who were brought to this nation as children.

The pathway to becoming a legal citizen would be made easier, and the bill aimed to streamline the process out of recognition of the huge blacklog that exists when it comes to processing applications and documentation. In addition the bill would have improved our security measures, helping to further prevent influxes undocumented immigrants in the future.

Another argument in favor of the bill was that it was pretty much as good as both sides were going to get. It was a real, legitimate move toward compromise, created by leading voices from both parties. Unless something changes drastically, there are going to continue to be two parties warring for control of our government. Even though no one got everything they wanted in this bill, it was truly a compromise.

What were the arguments against the bill?

The arguments against the bill included that it rewarded people for breaking the law and entering the country illegally. They argue that providing them help now, even it it only applies to immigrants currently in the country, will encourage others to try to illegally enter American borders. In addition, there’s worry that encouraging undocumented immigrants to stay will lead to overpopulation and take jobs away from American citizens. In addition, arguments against the bill included that it didn’t go far enough, and/or made certain steps harder for undocumented immigrants.

Conclusion

Many believe that undocumented workers take away jobs from American citizens and therefore should not be allowed to acquire citizenship themselves. Others believe that illegal immigrants are a source of increased drug trafficking in our nation. However, we have always been a nation of immigrants. If we begin refusing citizenship to those people who have lived and worked in our country for years we step away from the traditions that make this country what it is and always will be, a nation where people come to build a better life.

Resources

Primary

US Senate: S. 744 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

Additional

Mic: TRUST Act Gain Traction in California

Breitbart: Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) Gives Pro-Immigration Bill on Senate Floor in Spanish

Hill: Graham Predicts Breakthrough Passage of Immigration Reform Bill

Reuters: Senator Marco Rubio Still Backs Immigration Bill

ReimagineRPE: Black-Latino Coalitions Block Anti-Immigrant Laws in Mississippi

Mic: 5 Critical Amendments That Could Destroy the Immigration Reform Bill

NY Mag: The Gaffe That Could Threaten Immigration Reform

Huffington Post: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Attempts to Add Voter ID to Immigration Reform Bill

ABC News: Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Wants to Kill the Immigration Reform Bill

The New York Times: In Round 3, Immigration Bill Faces Sessions, Who Won Rounds 1 and 2

Fox News: Senators Rubio and Graham on Immigration Reform Bill

Washington Post: Three Amendments to Watch

CNN: Senate Votes to Begin Debate on Immigration Reform Bill

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Immigration Reform Bill of 2013: Progress That Went Nowhere appeared first on Law Street.