Saint Louis University Law Journal Saint Louis University Law Journal

Saint Louis University Law Journal
Volume 53
Number 1 The Use and Misuse of History in Article 15
U.S. Foreign Relations Law (Fall 2008)
2008
Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Realities of De Facto

Deportation and International Comparisons Toward Proposing a
Solution
Amanda Colvin
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj
Part of the Law Commons
Recommended Citation
Amanda Colvin, Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Realities of De Facto Deportation and
International Comparisons Toward Proposing a Solution, 53 St. Louis U. L.J. (2008).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol53/iss1/15
This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Commons. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Saint Louis University Law Journal by an authorized editor of Scholarship Commons. For more
information, please contact Susie Lee.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES: REALITIES

OF DE FACTO DEPORTATION AND INTERNATIONAL
COMPARISONS TOWARD PROPOSING A SOLUTION
[W]e are a nation of immigrants who, through citizenship, seek to fully

embrace all that America is and hopes to be. Today, as in decades past for
many immigrants, citizenship represents the ultimate in attaining the American
dream. Citizenship acknowledges the exceptional value of the immigrants and
bestows fuller acceptance into American society. Through naturalization the
immigrant is transformed from an “alien” into an American; no longer the
stranger, but now an esteemed family member free to assert all the rights and
1
bear all the responsibilities of American citizenship.
INTRODUCTION
Saul Arellano is an American citizen.2 His mother, Elvira Arellano,
arrived in the United States illegally in 1997 from Mexico and gave birth to
Saul shortly thereafter. 3 In 2006, despite two previous deportation deferrals,
Elvira was ordered deported.4 She immediately took refuge in a Chicago
church to avoid being separated from her son,5 and she quickly became an
activist “for illegal immigrant parents as she defied her deportation order and
spoke out from her sanctuary.”6
On August 19, 2007, Elvira had just spoken at an immigration rally when
she was arrested and deported to Mexico.7 She left her son in the care of
Reverend Walter Coleman from the Chicago church.8 Immigration and
Customs Enforcement has defended its actions, saying that Elvira, who had
previously been convicted of using a false identity and using someone else’s
1. John S. Cummins, Naturalization and Birthright Citizenship Should Be Encouraged, in

IMMIGRATION: OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS 188, 189 (Mary E. Williams ed., 2004).
2. Coleman v. United States, 454 F. Supp. 2d 757, 760 (N.D. Ill. 2006); see also Gretchen
Ruethling, Chicago Woman’s Stand Stirs Immigration Debate, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 19, 2006, at
A10.
3. Coleman, 454 F. Supp. 2d at 760.
4. Id. at 762.
5. Elliot Spagat, U.S. Deports Sanctuary Movement’s Symbol, USA TODAY, Aug. 20, 2007,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-08-19-2962407204_x.htm.
6. Id.
7. Sara Olkon & Bob Secter, Deporting Mother Inflames Emotions, CHI. TRIB., Aug. 21,
2007, at 1.
8. Spagat, supra note 5.
219
220 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 53:219
social security number, was a criminal fugitive living in the United States
illegally.9
In response to her deportation order, Elvira’s priest filed suit on behalf of
Saul alleging that the removal order was a constructive removal action against
Saul that violated his Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights.10 The court
acknowledged that Saul “possesses the constitutional right . . . to reside in the
United States,” and “[i]nherent within this right of citizenship is the
‘independent right to not be deported.’”11 However, the court specified that
“this particular right of citizenship is personal and cannot be imputed to non-
citizens,”12 essentially declaring that Saul’s citizenship status alone cannot
save his mother from deportation.
Although the court recognized that “any separation of a child from its
mother is a hardship,” it reasoned that this hardship should not allow “an
otherwise unqualified mother to append the children’s right to remain in the
United States.”13 The law does not grant citizen family members of illegal
aliens a legal right to prevent deportation.14 Each court that has addressed the
issue of whether a removal order issued against an alien parent violates the
constitutional rights of a citizen-child has held that removal is not
unconstitutional, “even if that removal constitutes the ‘constructive’ or ‘de
facto deportation’ of a citizen-child.”15 The removal of the illegal alien parent
does not violate the child’s constitutional rights since the “citizen child remains
free to exercise his right to live in the United States.”16 The court subsequently
concluded that because Elvira’s removal order would “not have any legal
effect on Saul’s right to remain in the United States,” the removal order should
be executed as ordered.17
Coleman v. United States represents the typical case in which a citizen-
child is trying to prevent the deportation of his illegal alien parent. The
problem with deporting illegal residents with American-born children is that
the children have a constitutional right to U.S. citizenship, acquired simply by
virtue of having been born within U.S. borders.18 As a consequence, the
children are legal citizens and cannot be forced to leave. However, the
9. Coleman, 454 F. Supp. 2d at 760.

10. Id.
11. Id. at 766 (citing Acosta v. Gaffney, 558 F.2d 1153, 1157 (3d Cir. 1977) and Oforji v.
Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 616 (7th Cir. 2003)).
12. Id.
13. Id. at 767 (quoting Oforji, 354 F.3d at 617–18).
14. Coleman, 454 F. Supp. 2d at 767 (quoting Oforji, 354 F.3d at 617–18).
15. Id.
16. Id. at 767–68.
17. Id. at 768.
18. See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1; see also infra Part I (discussing birthright citizenship
in the United States).
2008] BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES 221
deportation of the parent often results in de facto deportation of the citizen-

children, a practice which many argue contradicts the constitutional guarantee
of birthright citizenship and the inherent rights associated with American
citizenship.
This Comment takes the position that the current U.S. immigration policy
of deporting illegal immigrants with little regard to the citizenship status of
their children directly contradicts the ideals of birthright citizenship,
particularly with regard to children of illegal immigrant parents. The inherent
rights of these citizen-children simply cannot be respected and upheld under a
system that forces them to choose between either exercising their right to
remain in the United States or staying with their parent and being deported.
Birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrant parents must be
abandoned in favor of a system that does not require such a difficult and
contradictory choice.
Undoubtedly, these problems are not uniquely American. To better
resolve these supposed contradictions between law and policy, an international
perspective is imperative and practical. Thus, this Comment discusses
birthright citizenship from an international perspective, providing a
comparative analysis between the United States’ approach toward birthright
citizenship and the approach taken by other western democratic nations. Part I
discusses the origins of birthright citizenship in general and the problem of
illegal immigrant births in the United States, including information on illegal
immigrant birthrates, a summary of the conflicting schools of thought on the
subject of birthright citizenship, and pending congressional responses. Part II
discusses de facto deportation and the relative case law and legislation. Part III
encompasses the comparative analysis and includes an examination of the
philosophical and practical approaches to birthright citizenship taken in
Canada, Australia, Ireland, and France. Finally, Part IV attempts to propose a
solution to resolve the contradiction between U.S. law, which grants birthright
citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, and U.S. policy, which
encourages the deportation of illegal immigrant parents and the inevitable de
facto deportation of the citizen-child.
I. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES

The United States confers both jus sanguinis19 citizenship and jus soli20
citizenship. Jus sanguinis confers citizenship to any child whose parent is a
citizen,21 and jus soli confers citizenship to anyone born within a state’s
19. Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), § 301(c)-(e), (g)-(h), 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c)-(e),
(g)-(h) (2006).
20. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1; 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)-(b).
21. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 880 (8th ed. 2004).
territory.22 The jus soli doctrine as used in the United States originates from
English common law, which conferred citizenship upon any person born
within its boundaries.23 Jus soli, or birthright citizenship, was incorporated
into U.S. law with the Civil Rights Act of 186624 and ultimately the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.25 Thus, “every person born within the
dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his
parents, was a natural-born citizen.”26
A. The Statistics of Illegal Immigration and Birthright Citizenship

The practice of birthright citizenship in the United States has resulted in a
staggering number of U.S. citizens born to illegal immigrant parents.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, approximately “383,000
children are born each year to illegal alien mothers, accounting for nearly 10
percent of all births in the United States.”27 The Federation for American
Immigration Reform claims that, of these, almost half are born to illegal
immigrants who come to the United States “to give birth so their children will
be American citizens.”28 Some estimates indicate that “about 3.1 million
American children have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant.”29 In
2007, “[a]bout two-thirds of the children of the illegal immigrants detained in
immigration raids” were born in the United States, and “at least 13,000
American children have seen one or both parents deported in the past two
years” after immigration raids in factories and neighborhoods.30
22. Id.
23. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655–66 (1898); see also Jonathan C.
Drimmer, The Nephews of Uncle Sam: The History, Evolution, and Application of Birthright
Citizenship in the United States, 9 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 667, 671–73 (1995) (discussing birthright
citizenship under English law). For other introductory overviews of birthright citizenship in
English common law, see ALEXANDER PORTER MORSE, A TREATISE ON CITIZENSHIP, BY BIRTH
AND BY NATURALIZATION (Boston, Little, Brown, & Co. 1881), and Charles Wood, Losing
Control of America’s Future—The Census, Birthright Citizenship, and Illegal Aliens, 22 HARV.
J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 465, 504–06 (1999).
24. Civil Rights Act of 1866, ch. 31, § 1, 14 Stat. 27, 27 (1866) (current version at 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981–1982 (2000)).
25. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
26. FREDERICK VAN DYNE, CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES 5 (1904) (citing Lynch v.
Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (N.Y. Ch. 1844)).
27. Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty: Hearing
Before the Subcomm. on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, 109th Cong. 2 (2005) (statement of Rep. John Hostettler, Chairman, Subcomm. on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims).
28. Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 621 (7th Cir. 2003).
29. Julia Preston, Case of Mother Torn from Baby Reflects Immigration Quandary, N.Y.
TIMES, Nov. 17, 2007, at A1.
30. Id.
With such high numbers of American-born children with illegal immigrant

parents, policymakers have struggled to decide how to deal with illegal
immigrants while also respecting the citizenship status and familial needs of
their citizen-children. Incidents similar to the case of Elvira Arellano represent
the difficulties that lawmakers face in forming a workable approach toward
illegal immigration. More recently, in October 2007, an illegal immigrant
mother was detained while nursing her nine-month-old baby, who was born in
the United States.31 Immigration and Customs Enforcement responded to
subsequent outcries over her detention by issuing new written guidelines
establishing how agents should treat single parents, pregnant or nursing
women, and other immigrants with special child or family care responsibilities
who are arrested in raids.32
B. Birthright Citizenship: The Debate
1. Maintain Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants and

Eliminate De Facto Deportation
Proponents of birthright citizenship contend that denying or restricting
birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants would create grave
social problems, resulting in a “new and artificial barrier between the
‘accepted’ citizens and the ‘unaccepted’ citizens of our nation” that would
“create an unhealthy and destructive divide within America and add to the
number of those who feel excluded from the greater society.”33 Ending
birthright citizenship for these children “would create a new series of practical
problems for citizens and government alike.”34 As one commentator notes:
Native-born Americans would have to prove their parents’ citizenship in order
to enjoy the rights and privileges of their own citizenship. This in turn would
introduce new possibilities for racial and ethnic discrimination. A stateless
class would be created—the first native-born non-citizens to grow up in
35
America since the children of slaves before the Civil War.
Without a system of birthright citizenship, the United States, a country with
high immigration rates, would become “a hereditary caste of permanent
aliens.”36
31. Id.
32. Id.
33. Cummins, supra note 1, at 190.
34. Id. at 191.
35. Id.
36. T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Between Principles and Politics: U.S. Citizenship Policy, in
FROM MIGRANTS TO CITIZENS: MEMBERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD 119, 128 (T. Alexander
Alenikoff & Douglas Klusmeyer eds., 2000) (quoting Societal and Legal Issues Surrounding
Children Born in the United States to Illegal Alien Parents: Joint Hearing Before the Subcomm.
Proponents of birthright citizenship also offer practical arguments in favor

of continuing the current law. They argue that immigrants “access social
welfare services at much lower rates than U.S.-born citizens,” and
intergenerational welfare dependency between immigrant parents and children
is unsubstantiated, negating arguments that focus on taxpayer burdens.37
Additionally, illegal immigrants “tend to have above-average levels of
education and occupational skills in comparison with their homeland
populations,” since “[t]he very poor and the unemployed seldom migrate.”38
Illegal immigrants are “positively self-selected in terms of ambition and
willingness to work.”39
Activists for illegal immigrants also argue that strict policies calling for the
deportation of illegal immigrant mothers violate the constitutional rights of
their citizen-children, destroy the family, and result in negative consequences
for their children. In fact, courts deciding issues of de facto deportation have
acknowledged that “the longer [that] children [of illegal immigrant parents]
have lived in the United States, the greater the hardship to them of being sent
back to their parent’s native country.”40 Thus, many argue that not only should
the practice of birthright citizenship be maintained, but deportation of the
illegal immigrant parents of citizen-children should end.41
2. Abolition of Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants

Opponents of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants
generally utilize three arguments in favor of abolishing the practice.42 First, it
bestows citizenship on some whose “only tie to the society is the geographic
accident of their place of birth.”43 Second, jus soli citizenship encourages
people from developing nations to enter illegally and give birth to their
children,44 giving rise to so-called “anchor babies.”45 Anti-immigrant groups,
on Immigration and Claims and the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, 104th Cong. 109 (1995) (statement of Gerald L. Neuman, Professor, Columbia
University Law School)).
37. Priscilla Huang, Which Babies are Real Americans?, TOMPAINE.COM, Feb. 20, 2007,
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/20/which_babies_are_real_americans.php.
38. ALEJANDRO PORTES & RUBÉN G. RUMBAUT, IMMIGRANT AMERICA: A PORTRAIT 10
(2d ed. 1996).
39. Id.
40. Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 620 (7th Cir. 2003) (Posner, J., concurring).
41. For a more extensive criticism of de facto deportation, see discussion infra Part II.B.
42. T. ALEXANDER ALEINIKOFF & DOUGLAS KLUSMEYER, CITIZENSHIP POLICIES FOR AN
AGE OF MIGRATION 11 (2000).
43. Id.
44. Id. The authors note, however, that there is “scant evidence” to support the claim that
illegal immigrants enter the country solely to give birth. Id. They immigrate to “obtain work,
join family, or flee persecution or civil strife.” Id.
45. Judith Bernstein-Baker, Citizenship in a Restrictionist Era: The Mixed Messages of
such as the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), argue that

these children born to illegal immigrant parents “create a drain on the
country’s social service programs.”46 They contend that the large numbers of
births by non-U.S. citizens in American hospitals is indisputable, and “its
impact is huge.”47 Third, automatic birthright citizenship may influence states
to “adopt tougher rules on family unification,” namely, by deporting the illegal
immigrant parents of citizen-children.48
Opponents of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants argue
that “it is simply morally perverse to reward law-breaking by conferring the
valued status of citizenship.”49 Such a policy “makes a mockery of
citizenship”50 and allows illegal immigrants and their children to
“automatically jump ahead of millions of other foreigners patiently waiting in
line abroad for the chance to come to the United States in proper, legal
fashion.”51 One commentator argues that withholding birthright citizenship
from “anchor babies” “would no more be ‘blaming’ or ‘punishing’ innocent
children than an airline would be blaming or punishing the children of
hijackers by not awarding them Frequent Flier mileage for unscheduled flights
to Havana.”52 Instead of “encouraging foreigners to come to the United States
solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children,” the
United States should “stop [this] abuse of hospitality . . . by changing the rule
on citizenship.”53 American-born children should not be forced to make an
“ugly choice” between either staying in the United States without their parents
or facing de facto deportation to their parents’ home country.54
C. Pending Congressional Responses

Congress has struggled to resolve the debate concerning birthright
citizenship and the rights of the American-born children of illegal immigrants.
In January 2007, Representative Elton Gallegly from California reintroduced
the Citizenship Reform Act, House Bill 133,55 and in April 2007,
Federal Policies, 16 TEMP. POL. & CIV. RTS. L. REV. 367, 371 (2007).
46. Huang, supra note 37.
47. Bonnie Erbe, Birthright Citizenship Should Be Repealed, in IMMIGRATION: OPPOSING
VIEWPOINTS, supra note 1, at 184, 186.
48. ALEINIKOFF & KLUSMEYER, supra note 42, at 11.
49. Aleinikoff, supra note 36, at 127.
50. Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 621 (7th Cir. 2003) (Posner, J., concurring) (quoting
John McCaslin, Inside the Beltway: Rotund Tourists, WASH. TIMES, Aug. 27, 2002, at A7).
51. Erbe, supra note 47, at 186–87.
52. Id. at 186.
53. Oforji, 354 F.3d at 621 (Posner, J., concurring).
54. Id.
55. 153 CONG. REC. H115 (daily ed. Jan. 5, 2007).
Representative Nathan Deal proposed House Bill 1940,56 both of which would
have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny birthright
citizenship to children of parents who are neither citizens nor permanent
resident aliens.57 In November 2007, Representative Tom Tancredo
introduced House Bill 4192,58 which contained a provision that also would
have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that a child
would not be a U.S. citizen unless at the time of the child’s birth at least one of
the child’s parents is a citizen or lawful permanent resident alien.59 In a
markedly different approach, in January 2007, Representative Jose Serrano
from New York introduced House Bill 213,60 which would provide
discretionary authority to an immigration judge to determine that an alien
parent of a United States citizen-child should not be deported if the deportation
would be against the best interests of the child.61
II. DE FACTO DEPORTATION
A. Case Law
As stated above, each court that has addressed the issue of whether a
removal order issued against an alien parent violates the constitutional rights of
a citizen-child has held that removal is not unconstitutional, “even if that
removal constitutes the ‘constructive’ or ‘de facto deportation’ of a citizen
child.”62 Although courts have acknowledged that “any separation of a child
56. 153 CONG. REC. H3693 (daily ed. Apr. 19, 2007).
57. Citizenship Reform Act of 2007, H.R. 133, 110th Cong. (2007); Birthright Citizenship
Act of 2007, H.R. 1940, 110th Cong. (2007).
58. 153 CONG. REC. H14,080 (daily ed. Nov. 15, 2007).
59. OVERDUE Immigration Reform Act of 2007, H.R. 4192, 110th Cong. § 201 (2007).
60. 153 CONG. REC. H118 (daily ed. Jan. 5, 2007).
61. H.R. 213, 110th Cong. (2007). After the original bill never became law, Serrano
reintroduced it as H.R. 182 in January 2009.
62. Coleman v. United States, 454 F. Supp. 2d 757, 767 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (footnote omitted);
see also Gallanosa v. United States, 785 F.2d 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1986); Marquez-Medina v. INS,
765 F.2d 673, 676 (7th Cir. 1985); Newton v. INS, 736 F.2d 336, 342–43 (6th Cir. 1984);
Valadez-Salas v. INS, 721 F.2d 251, 252 (8th Cir. 1983); Aguilar v. INS, 638 F.2d 717, 719 (5th
Cir. 1981); Delgado v. INS, 637 F.2d 762, 763–64 (10th Cir. 1980); Urbano de Malaluan v. INS,
577 F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir. 1978) (observing that the argument “that the deportation order would
amount to a de facto deportation of the child and thus violate the constitutional rights of the
child . . . has been authoritatively rejected in numerous cases”); Acosta v. Gaffney, 558 F.2d
1153, 1158 (3d Cir. 1977); Enciso-Cardozo v. INS, 504 F.2d 1252, 1253 (2d Cir. 1974); Bill
Piatt, Born as Second Class Citizens in the U.S.A.: Children of Undocumented Parents, 63
NOTRE DAME L. REV. 35, 40–41 (1988) (noting that citizen children “have not been successful in
pressing the view that the deportation of their undocumented parents is tantamount to the de facto
deportation of the child”).
from its mother is a hardship,”63 they have reasoned that the removal of the
illegal alien parent does not violate the child’s constitutional rights, since the
“citizen child remains free to exercise his right to live in the United States.”64
Once the child “reaches the age of discretion, . . . she will be free to return and
make her home in this country,” and her “parents’ deportation will not affect
her[] right to do so.”65 The Seventh Circuit has held that “the constitutional
right . . . to exercise a choice of residence, and to leave or stay in the United
States as one chooses . . . is not always absolute in children.”66
Courts have also held that an illegal alien parent who has no legal right “to
remain in the United States may not establish a derivative claim for asylum” by
arguing that de facto deportation would force hardship on her child.67 The
Ninth Circuit has reasoned that one of the principal reasons for the rejection of
de facto deportation of the child as a means to prevent deportation of the illegal
parent “is that it would permit a wholesale avoidance of immigration laws if an
alien were to be able to enter the country, have a child shortly thereafter, and
prevent deportation.”68 The court in Gonzalez-Cuevas v. INS held that alien
parents “who illegally remain[] in the United States for the occasion of the
birth of their citizen children” do not derive any “extraordinary rights . . .
directly or vicariously through their citizen children, to retain their illegally
acquired residency status in this country.”69
63. Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 617 (7th Cir. 2003).
64. Coleman, 454 F. Supp. 2d at 767–68; see also Lopez v. Franklin, 427 F. Supp. 345, 349
(E.D. Mich. 1977) (rejecting the argument that de facto deportation violated a citizen-child’s
constitutional rights in part because the child’s departure from the United States was not “the
necessary result of the government’s actions”).
65. Ayala-Flores v. INS, 662 F.2d 444, 446 (6th Cir. 1981); see also Acosta, 558 F.2d at
1158 (reasoning that “[t]he right of an American citizen to fix and change his residence is a
continuing one which he enjoys throughout his life,” and deportation of a citizen-child’s illegal
immigrant parent “will merely postpone, but not bar” the child’s right to reside in the United
States).
66. Schleiffer v. Meyers, 644 F.2d 656, 662–63 (7th Cir. 1981); see also Perdido v. INS, 420
F.2d 1179, 1181 (5th Cir. 1969) (reasoning that “a minor child who is fortuitously born here due
to his parents’ decision to reside in this country has not exercised a deliberate decision to make
this country his home, and Congress did not give such a child the ability to confer immigration
benefits on his parents”)
67. Oforji, 354 F.3d at 618.
68. Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577 F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir. 1978); see also Mendez v.
Major, 340 F.2d 128, 131–32 (8th Cir. 1965) (holding that “Congress has the power to determine
the conditions under which an alien may enter and remain in the United States even though the
conditions may impose a certain amount of hardship upon an alien’s wife or children” (citations
omitted)).
69. 515 F.2d 1222, 1224 (5th Cir. 1975).
B. De Facto Deportation: A Practical Perspective

Despite the consensus among U.S. Circuits that any legal claim of de facto
deportation is without merit, de facto deportation undoubtedly has real, anti-
American consequences in practice. Undoubtedly, scholars on both sides of
the debate have argued that “‘what is best for the child’” should be the guiding
principle in determining a workable policy toward citizen-children of illegal
immigrant parents.70 However, considering that most immigrants today come
to America because of “desperate poverty, squalor, and unemployment” in
their own countries,71 sending the child back to the parents’ home country
seems counterintuitive as a method to achieve “what is best for the child.”
Additionally, many nations, including westernized and non-westernized,
democratic and non-democratic, have recognized at some point the right of a
child to the care and parentage of a family.72 In fact, all but two United
Nations states73 have acknowledged that the family is “the fundamental group
of society” and serves as the “natural environment for the growth and well-
being of all its members.”74 Children “particularly . . . should be afforded the
necessary protection and assistance” of the family, and children “should grow
up in a family environment” to ensure their “full and harmonious
development.”75
Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child obligates party
states to “undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her
identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law
without unlawful interference.”76 Article 9 requires party states to “ensure that
a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except
when . . . such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.”77
Surprisingly, the United States is one of the two U.N. states who have yet to
ratify the Convention.78
70. Marvin P. Dawkins, Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy, BLACK ISSUES IN HIGHER
EDUC., Apr. 27, 2000, at 120.
71. PORTES & RUMBAUT, supra note 38, at 9.
72. See United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25, U.N. Doc.
A/RES/44/25 (Nov. 20, 1989); see also infra Part III.D.1 (discussing jus soli and deportation of
illegal immigrant parents in Ireland).
73. The United States has signed, but not ratified, the Convention. See Office of the U.N.
High Comm’r for Human Rights, Status of Ratifications of the Principal Int’l Human Rights
Treaties (June 9, 2004), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf; see also Child Rights
Information Network, Convention on the Rights of the Child, http://www.crin.org/resources/
treaties/CRC.asp?catName=International+Treatie (last visited Dec. 15, 2008).
74. G.A. Res. 44/25, supra note 72, pmbl.
75. Id.
76. Id. art. 8.
77. Id. art. 9.
78. See supra note 73.
Not only is there international recognition of a child’s right to familial

support and care, but traditional American legal and moral principles of the
sanctity of the family and parental involvement in the care and rearing of
children seem to contradict courts’ unsympathetic view of de facto
deportation.79 Courts have acknowledged that “[t]o protect the unit in [its]
constitutionally guaranteed right to form and preserve the family is one of the
basic principles for which organized government is established.”80 One
commentator argues that “although the word ‘family’ is not found in the U.S.
Constitution, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized that the protection
of private choices about family integrity is a matter of constitutional
dimension.”81 The relationship between a parent and child “has always been
recognized as an inherent, natural right, for the protection of which, just as
much as for the protection of the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness, our government is formed.”82
Although the United States has yet to adopt the U.N. Convention and is
therefore under no U.N. obligation to recognize a child’s right to a consistent
familial structure, basic principles of fairness and integrity require such an
approach. The child may be free to stay in the United States with a relative or
family friend, but the child’s inevitable need for a family structure will most
often force him to leave with his deportee parent. A citizen-child of an illegal,
deportee parent has two choices, both undesirable. One such choice “denies
citizen children their right to remain in the United States, and the other
79. See David B. Thronson, Choiceless Choices: Deportation and the Parent-Child
Relationship, 6 NEV. L.J. 1165, 1174–75 (2006) (discussing the Supreme Court’s tendency to
protect “family integrity” and prevent outside influence on the parent-child relationship, and
arguing that “the Court’s primary approach has been to stress parents’ role in raising their
children”).
80. Lacher v. Venus, 188 N.W. 613, 617 (Wis. 1922); see also Moore v. City of East
Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977) (arguing that Supreme Court jurisprudence “establish[es]
that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the
family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”). The Court argues that the
Wisconsin v. Yoder Court “rested its holding in part on the constitutional right of parents to
assume the primary role in decisions concerning the rearing of their children.” Moore, 431 U.S.
at 503 n.12 (citing Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)). Such a constitutional right “is
recognized because it reflects a ‘strong tradition’ founded on ‘the history and culture of Western
civilization,’ and because the parental role ‘is now established beyond debate as an enduring
American tradition.’” Id. (quoting Yoder, 406 U.S. at 232).
81. David B. Thronson, You Can’t Get Here from Here: Toward a More Child-Centered
Immigration Law, 14 VA. J. SOC. POL’Y & L. 58, 58–59 (2006). Thronson argues that “[t]he
Supreme Court has long acknowledged that among the liberties protected by the due process
clause of the constitution is the right to ‘establish a home and bring up children, . . . [a right]
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’” Id. at 59 n.4 (alteration in original)
(quoting Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)); see also Moore, 431 U.S. at 503 n.12
(quoting Yoder, 406 U.S. at 232).
82. Lacher, 188 N.W. at 617.
destroys their right to live in an intact family.”83 De facto deportation is real,

and passively forcing a child to leave the country to retain familial support
contradicts American notions of the importance of family. Such a practice also
undoubtedly affects the citizen-child’s ability to develop crucial, nationhood
bonds with the United States.84 The “fundamental rights [of] the parent-child
relationship” should not be “weakened by parents’ lack of immigration status
or even their imminent deportation.”85
C. De Facto Deportation: Legislation

Under current law, the U.S. Attorney General may cancel the deportation
of an illegal alien parent upon a showing of exceptional hardship and a
minimum of ten years continuous physical presence in the United States.86
Simply asserting that deportation would have “a negative impact on the citizen
child does not itself establish the extreme hardship necessary to cease the
deportation.”87 The U.S. Attorney General and the Board of Immigration
Appeals has broad discretion, without much scope for judicial substantive
review, to define “extreme hardship” and determine situations that qualify as
an “extreme hardship” on the child.88 This law, however, has been criticized
as arbitrary, ineffective, and unnecessarily strict.89
Judge Richard Posner, in his concurring opinion in Oforji v. Ashcroft,
criticized the “ten-year rule” by arguing that it “has only a tenuous relation to
the hardship of children whose parent is ordered deported.”90 Posner continues
83. Thronson, supra note 81, at 80; see also Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 618 (7th Cir.
2003) (stating that despite the hardship that an illegal alien parent must face in choosing whether
to allow her children to remain in the United States with a guardian or to take them back to her
home country, “Congress has foreseen such difficult choices, but has opted to leave the choice
with the illegal immigrant”).
84. See Thronson, supra note 81, at 81 (arguing that “removal of citizen children from the
United States is certain to limit their development of important bonds with their country of
citizenship”).
85. Thronson, supra note 79, at 1197.
86. INA § 240A(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2006); see also Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,
327 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 2003); Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 597 (9th Cir.
2002).
87. Michael Robert W. Houston, Note, Birthright Citizenship in the United Kingdom and the
United States: A Comparative Analysis of the Common Law Basis for Granting Citizenship to
Children Born of Illegal Immigrants, 33 VAND. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 693, 733 (2000).
88. Hernandez-Cordero v. INS, 819 F.2d 558, 561 (5th Cir. 1987); Contreras-Buenfil v. INS,
712 F.2d 401, 402–03 (9th Cir. 1983).
89. See Nora V. Demleitner, How Much Do Western Democracies Value Family and
Marriage?: Immigration Law’s Conflicted Answers, 32 HOFSTRA L. REV. 273, 298 (2003)
(arguing that the prerequisite “that the alien be a person of good moral character” is a requirement
that is impossible to fulfill for illegal immigrants with a criminal conviction and that subsequent
court decisions indicate that the “hardship requirement is very difficult to meet”).
90. 354 F.3d 609, 620 (7th Cir. 2003) (Posner, J., concurring). At the time, the rule Posner
by acknowledging “that the longer the children have lived in the United States,
the greater the hardship to them of being sent back to their parent’s native
country,” and the hardship is “made more excruciating the longer they remain
here and become acclimated to American ways.”91 The ten-year rule is
“irrational,” since “the parent may have been here for nine years but the child
[may] have been born eight years ago,” and deportation would still be a great
hardship for the child, even though the parent might not satisfy the ten-year
requirement.92
III. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN OTHER WESTERN

DEMOCRATIC NATIONS
In determining a workable policy to deal with the American-born children
of illegal immigrant mothers, lawmakers should examine the policies utilized
in other western democratic nations facing similar immigration problems.
Controlling access to automatic citizenship or nationality in modern liberal-
democratic states has generally centered around three approaches: jus soli, jus
sanguinis, and naturalization through formalized legal procedures, such as
marriage, adoption, or other specialized circumstances.93 Some argue that in
countries where jus soli is used to determine citizenship, “the public policy
toward migrants is one of assimilation.”94 Conversely, in countries where jus
sanguinis is used to determine citizenship, “the public policy toward migrants
is one that resists assimilation,” and xenophobia remains a serious problem in
these areas.95
Modern states often employ some variation of all three of the primary
means to satisfy different purposes.96 Whatever the means that nations choose,
“questions of citizenship are always inextricably bound to larger issues of
sovereignty, national identity, the framework of political order, and individual
liberties.”97
was criticizing required seven years continual presence in the United States. Id. His criticisms,
however, are still relevant in the context of the ten-year rule.
91. Id.
92. Id.
93. Douglas Klusmeyer, Introduction to FROM MIGRANTS TO CITIZENS: MEMBERSHIP IN A
CHANGING WORLD, supra note 36, at 5.
94. John D. Snethen, The Evolution of Sovereignty and Citizenship in Western Europe:
Implications for Migration and Globalization, 8 IND. J. GLOBAL LEGAL STUD. 223, 244 (2000).
95. Id.
96. See id. at 242–44.
97. Klusmeyer, supra note 93, at 7.
A. Canada
1. History of Jus Soli

Under current Canadian law,98 jus soli citizenship is conferred on anyone
born in Canada, regardless of the citizenship status of his parents.99 For
decades before the passing of the Citizenship Act, the Canadian Parliament
made little effort to define the status of Canadian citizenship, opting instead to
rely on English common law.100 In the early 1900s, however, Canada began to
assert its status as an emerging independent country, rather than as a British
colony, partly by enacting statutes aimed at defining Canadian citizenship.101
One of these statutes, the Immigration Act of 1910,102 “placed significant
restrictions on citizenship,” which allowed Canadian Parliament to control the
composition of the Canadian population.103 The Immigration Act, in general,
defines a citizen as a person born in Canada, a British subject living in Canada,
or a person naturalized in Canada.104 Such restrictive legislation, aimed at
“achieving a cohesive and loyal population,”105 enabled Canada to
communicate to other nations its status as an autonomous country106 and assert
its newly acquired sovereignty.107 In fact, Canadian law explicitly states that
determinations of citizenship should be “designed and administered in such a
manner as to promote the domestic and international interests of Canada.”108
2. Jus Soli Comes Under Fire

During most of the legal history of Canada, birthright citizenship seemed
to be an acceptable and virtually undisputed policy that was “never seriously
98. Citizenship Act, R.S.C., ch. C-29 (1985).

99. Id. § 3(1). Children born to foreign diplomats are an exception. Donald Galloway, The
Dilemmas of Canadian Citizenship Law, 13 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 201 (1999), reprinted in FROM
MIGRANTS TO CITIZENS: MEMBERSHIP IN A CHANGING WORLD, supra note 36, at 82, 85 (citing
Citizenship Act, R.S.C. ch. C-29, § 3(2)). Galloway acknowledges that identifying the
Citizenship Act as the primary source of citizenship law is “controversial” because many credit
the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the authority on citizenship. Id. at 84.
However, Galloway argues that the Charter fails to define citizenship and does not identify
qualifications for obtaining citizenship. Id.
100. Galloway, supra note 99, at 93.
101. Id. at 94.
102. Immigration Act, 1910, 9 & 10 Edw. 7, c. 27 (Eng.).
103. Galloway, supra note 99, at 94.
104. Id. at 95 (citing Immigration Act, 1910, 9 & 10 Edw. 7, c. 27 § 2).
105. Id. at 97.
106. Id. at 95.
107. Id. at 96.
108. Ayelet Shachar, Children of a Lesser State: Sustaining Global Inequality Through
Citizenship Laws, in CHILD, FAMILY, AND STATE 345, 351 (Stephen Macedo & Iris Marion
Young eds., 2003) (citing Immigration Act, R.S.C., ch. I-2, § 3 (1985)).
questioned.”109 Apparently, birthright citizenship did not come under serious

debate or consideration until 1994, when the issue was raised for discussion
before the Canadian Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.110
The Standing Committee reported the potential for abuse of birthright
citizenship, stating that “some women may be coming to Canada as visitors
solely for the purpose of having their babies on Canadian soil, thereby ensuring
Canadian citizenship for their children.”111 The Committee subsequently
recommended that jus soli citizenship be abandoned in favor of a policy that
grants citizenship only to children of at least one Canadian-citizen parent.112
Although such recommendations did not develop into any tangible legislation,
the concerns over abuses of birthright citizenship and proposals for reform
remained.113
Jus soli citizenship has continued to receive staunch criticism in recent
years from politicians, legal experts, and members of the Canadian public.114
Their concerns, in large part, mirror the concerns of Americans who oppose
granting birthright citizenship, including the fear “that illegal immigrants in
Canada are abusing the birthright citizenship law by having children on
Canadian soil, and then ‘using’ these children to increase their chances of
staying in the country.”115
In the Canadian Supreme Court case of Baker v. Canada, the court dealt
with a situation very similar to that of Elvira Arellano.116 A woman with
Canadian-born children was ordered deported, but she petitioned for an
exemption “based upon humanitarian and compassionate considerations,”
specifically the effect that her deportation would have on her children.117 The
court noted that although immigration officers should be impartial and free
from bias, their decision should include “sensitivity and understanding”118 and
should consider the various hardships that a deportee might face if forced to
109. Sarah Buhler, Babies as Bargaining Chips? In Defence of Birthright Citizenship in

Canada, 17 J.L. & Soc. Pol’y 87, 95 (2002).
110. Id. at 96 (citing Margaret Young, Canadian Citizenship Act and Current Issues (Ottawa:
Parliamentary Research Branch, 1998), available at http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-
R/LoPBdP/BP/bp445-e.htm).
111. Id. (quoting Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Canadian Citizenship:
A Sense of Belonging 17 (Ottawa: Pub. Works and Gov’t Servs. Can., 1994)); Margaret Young,
Canadian Citizenship Act and Current Issues (Ottawa: Parliamentary Research Branch, 1998),
available at http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp445-e.htm.
112. Buhler, supra note 109, at 96.
113. See id. at 96–97.
114. Id. at 88.
115. Id. at 88–89 (footnote omitted).
116. [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 (Can.), available at http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1999/1999
rcs2-817/1999rcs2-817.pdf.
117. Id. at 825–26.
118. Id. at 849–50.
return to her home country.119 Officers should also consider the “interests and
needs of children” because “[c]hildren’s rights, and attention to their interests,
are central humanitarian and compassionate values in Canadian society.”120
The court in Baker demonstrated “an increased respect” for Canadian-born
children of illegal immigrants.121 Although several cases following the Baker
decision have indicated that the effect of an illegal parent’s deportation on her
citizen-children is irrelevant in making the decision to deport,122 those
opposing birthright citizenship fear the Baker decision reflects an ever-
increasing problem in Canadian immigration law that makes it easier for illegal
immigrants to abuse the system.123
Some suggest that this shift in Canadian sentiment toward restriction of
birthright citizenship reflects a worldwide trend of nations moving “toward
more nationalistic and ethnically-defined identities”124 out of the pressure
stemming from ever-increasing global migration.125 As immigrants continue
to flock to more affluent nations, these countries respond by enacting policies
and laws that make it more difficult for immigrants to obtain citizenship.126
Canadian proponents of birthright citizenship, however, contend that
abolishing the policy would unfairly punish innocent children as a way to
“‘teach’ their immigrant parents to follow Canada’s immigration rules.”127
Proponents insist that any fair immigration policy must look beyond the
simplified statistics and criminality of illegal immigration and consider the
economic and political context in which the illegal immigration most often
occurs.128 “[M]orally blameless children” should not be used as legislative
pawns to punish parents “whose only ‘crime’ . . . is to have contravened
Canada’s immigration laws in a socio-economic context that leaves them
feeling that there is no other option.”129
The parallel between the Canadian situation and the recent controversy
over birthright citizenship in the United States is clear. It is interesting to note
that when faced with increasing numbers of births to illegal immigrant
mothers, many Canadians responded with a call to abolish unconditional jus
soli citizenship. Undoubtedly, proponents of this view recognize that abuse of
119. Id. at 862.

120. Id. at 860.
122. See id.
123. Id. at 94.
124. Id. at 100 (citing Canadian Council for Refugees, Statelessness—Addressing the Issues,
Nov. 1996, http://www.web.net/~ccr/statelss.htm).
125. Id.
127. Id. at 101.
128. See id.
129. Id.
birthright citizenship can only be sufficiently remedied by a change in the law

itself and not through an unfair policy that punishes citizen-children by forcing
them to be deported with their illegal immigrant parents.
B. Australia
1. Current Law
The Australian Citizenship Act of 1948 is the preeminent legislation
governing citizenship in Australia.130 The Act confers citizenship based on jus
soli, jus sanguinis, adoption, and by grant.131 Unconditional jus soli was the
position in Australia concerning birthright citizenship until a reform in 1986
declared that in order for a child born in Australia to be granted citizenship at
birth, the parent must be an Australian citizen or permanent resident, or have
been a resident for ten years at the time of the birth.132
2. Elimination of Unconditional Jus Soli Citizenship
a. Large-Scale Migration Program

Apparently, jus soli was “abandoned for a specific reason.”133 The
Australian government began to make deep, structural changes to raise the
country’s naturalization rates.134 After World War II, Australia began a large-
scale effort to recruit immigrants and create “one of the most culturally diverse
countries in the world.”135 The government began to view the acquisition of
130. Australian Citizenship Act, 1948; see Gianna Zappalà & Stephen Castles, Citizenship
and Immigration in Australia, in FROM MIGRANTS TO CITIZENS: MEMBERSHIP IN A CHANGING
WORLD, supra note 36, at 32, 42–43. Although the Australian Citizenship Act of 1948 was
recently replaced by the Australian Citizenship Act of 2007, the following discussion concerning
Australian citizenship is still relatively current, as the relevant provisions remain largely
unchanged, particularly the abandonment of unconditional jus soli. See Australian Citizenship
Act, 2007, § 12(1)(a)-(b).
131. Zappalà & Castles, supra note 130, at 43–44.
132. Bernard Ryan, The Celtic Cubs: The Controversy over Birthright Citizenship in Ireland,
6 EUR. J. MIGRATION & L. 173, 176 (2004) (citing Australian Citizenship Act, 1948, § 10(2) (as
amended)); see also Australian Dep’t of Immigration and Citizenship, Fact Sheet 17 - New
Zealanders in Australia, http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/17nz.htm (last visited Dec.
15, 2008).
133. Kim Rubenstein, Citizenship and the Centenary: Inclusion and Exclusion in 20th Century
Australia, 24 MELB. U. L. REV. 576, 588 (2000).
134. Klusmeyer, supra note 93, at 15–16. Authors Gianni Zappalà and Stephen Castles argue
that naturalization rates increased because the structural changes made by the government
properly addressed a bias in Australian laws toward British citizens. See id. at 16; Zappalà &
Castles, supra note 130, at 38–40.
135. Zappalà & Castles, supra note 130, at 33; see also Klusmeyer, supra note 93, at 15.
citizenship as essential to immigrants’ integration into Australian society.136

After naturalization rates remained low and stagnant in the 1950s and 1960s,
the “government gradually introduced measures to reduce administrative
complexity, lower fees, and simplify procedures.”137 Although these efforts
were accurately aimed at many problems surrounding low naturalization rates
in Australia at the time, these efforts proved insufficient to significantly boost
naturalization rates.138
“By the end of the 1960s, the government finally began to realize that
discrimination against immigrants and the failure to take their needs into
account was a major deterrent that discouraged migrants from seeking to
become Australian citizens.”139 The government began focusing on policies
that would “make newcomers feel welcome” and “accommodate the
immigrants’ own distinct interests and heritages,” including eliminating special
privileges and exemptions for British immigrants that had, whether actually or
symbolically, reflected Australia’s “self-understanding as ethnically
British.”140 One commentator attributes the rise in naturalization rates in the
1970s to these deeper structural changes that allowed Australia to move from
an exclusivist mentality to active promotion of multicultural diversity.141 By
1991, “70 percent of eligible overseas-born residents were Australian
citizens.”142
b. The End of Jus Soli

As a result of “one of the world’s largest migration programs,” residents’
resentment toward illegal immigrants began to rise and “[i]mposing a notion of
‘belonging’ . . . became increasingly tenuous.”143 In the case of Kioa v.
West,144 it was argued that a child who was born in Australia to parents who
were temporary entrants to Australia and subject to a deportation order was an
Australian citizen “entitled to natural justice.”145 The court rejected this view,
and the Australian government responded with a change in citizenship
legislation to prevent such an “abuse of citizenship to obtain an immigration
136. Klusmeyer, supra note 93, at 15; see also Zappalà & Castles, supra note 130, at 35.
137. Klusmeyer, supra note 93, at 15.
138. Id. at 15–16.
139. Id. at 16.
140. Id.
141. See id.
142. Zappalà & Castles, supra note 130, at 48.
143. Id. at 39.
144. (1985) 159 C.L.R. 550.
145. Rubenstein, supra note 133, at 588; see also MARY CROCK, IMMIGRATION & REFUGEE
LAW IN AUSTRALIA 26–27 (1998) (discussing the Kioa case and the arguments raised about the
court’s failure to “consider adequately the interests of the Australian-born children”).
advantage.”146 The Australian Citizenship Council, which supported removal

of jus soli citizenship, argued that “[i]n an international environment where
population movements are increasing exponentially,” countries like Australia
are “seen by many as a desirable destination.”147 Granting Australian
citizenship to children born in Australia to temporary or illegal entrants would
circumvent immigration laws, would “compromise Australia’s migration
program,” and would be “inequitable to the many thousands of people who
apply to migrate to Australia every year through proper channels.”148
As a resolution, the Australian government amended the Australian
Citizenship Act of 1948 to prevent future challenges from illegal immigrants
who had given birth while in Australia.149 As a result, children born in
Australia to illegal immigrant parents are not entitled to Australian citizenship
at birth.150 Instead, children born in Australia on or after August 20, 1986 to
illegal immigrant parents may become Australian citizens upon their tenth
birthday if they have resided in Australia for the ten years since their birth.151
However, illegal non-citizen parents still have no right to citizenship or to
remain in the country simply by virtue of the citizenship status of their
children.152
Similar to the situation in Canada, Australia experienced an exponential
influx of immigrants, although the increase was caused in large part by efforts
of the Australian government. Also similar to the Canadian experience, many
Australians began to resent immigrants who were viewed as abusing
citizenship rights. Australian officials, however, went a step further than
officials in Canada by actually eliminating unconditional birthright citizenship
from their laws.
146. Rubenstein, supra note 133, at 588–89.

147. Id. at 589 (quoting AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP COUNCIL, AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP FOR
A NEW CENTURY (2000)).
148. Id. (quoting AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP COUNCIL, AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP FOR A NEW
CENTURY (2000)).
150. Id.; CROCK, supra note 145, at 52 (citing Australian Citizenship Act, 1948, §§ 10–15).
This provision remains the same in the 2007 Act. See Australian Citizenship Act, 2007, §
12(1)(a).
151. Zappalà & Castles, supra note 130, at 43 (citing Australian Citizenship Act, 1948, §
10(2)(b)). This provision remains the same in the 2007 Act. See Australian Citizenship Act,
2007, § 12(1)(b).
C. Ireland
1. Jus Soli as a Means for Illegal Immigrant Parents to Resist

Deportation
The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1935 provided that anyone
born in Ireland on or after December 6, 1922 was considered a “natural-born
citizen[]” and granted unconditional jus soli.153 Unconditional jus soli “had
implications for Irish immigration law” by creating the possibility for parents
of Irish citizen-children to make a legal claim to remain in Ireland simply
because of their “connection to an Irish citizen.”154 Article 41 of the Irish
Constitution further strengthens this possibility, recognizing the family as “the
natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society and as a moral
institution possessing inalienable . . . rights . . . superior to all positive law.”155
In fact, parents of Irish citizens began to invoke Article 41 in the mid-1980s as
a means to resist deportation.156
In the 1987 case of Fajujonu v. Minister for Justice,157 the court held that
Irish citizen-children “had a right to family life which was exercisable in
Ireland.”158 The court reasoned that where an immigrant has “resided for an
appreciable time in the State” and has created a family with children who are
citizens, those children, as Irish citizens, have “a constitutional right to the
company, care and parentage of their parents within a family unit.”159
According to the court, citizen-children “are entitled to the care, protection and
153. Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1935 (Act No. 13/1935) (Ir.), available at
http://www.acts.ie/zza13y1935.1.html (last visited Dec. 15, 2008); see also Ir. CONST., 1937, art.
2, available at http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20
IrelandNov2004.pdf (last visited Dec. 15, 2008); Ryan, supra note 132, at 174. The Irish
Nationality and Citizenship Act was amended in 1956 to extend birthright citizenship to those
born in Northern Ireland. Id. at 174–75. However, this extension of birthright citizenship to
Northern Ireland was of little significance, since, for purposes of defining citizenship, the Irish
Constitution already recognized the “area of jurisdiction” of the Irish Free State as including the
entire island of Ireland. Id. at 175. “Irish law therefore treated the vast majority of persons
domiciled in Northern Ireland” as Irish citizens. Id. The Belfast Agreement of 1998 amended the
constitution to provide for citizenship as an “entitlement and birthright” of anyone born on the
island of Ireland. Id. at 177 (citing Ir. CONST., 1937, art. 2 (as amended)); see also Siobhàn
Mullally, Citizenship and Family Life in Ireland: Asking the Question ‘Who Belongs’?, 25 LEGAL
STUD. 578, 580 (2005).
154. Ryan, supra note 132, at 179.
155. Id. (citing Ir. CONST., 1937, art. 41).
156. Id.
157. [1989] 2 I.R. 151 (Ir.).
158. Ryan, supra note 132, at 180; see also Mullally, supra note 153, at 582–83 (describing
the court’s emphasis on the importance of family life for Irish citizen-children).
159. Ryan, supra note 132, at 180 (quoting Farjujonu, 2 I.R. at 162).
society of their parents.”160 The court’s reasoning revealed that a citizen-

child’s “right to family life in Ireland had to be given significant weight in
decisions taken with respect to their parents.”161 Illegal immigrant parents
could be deported only if “‘a grave and substantial reason associated with the
common good’ required such a step.”162 These reasons must be “so
predominant and so overwhelming” that breaking up a family to deport the
illegal immigrant parent “is not so disproportionate to the aim sought to be
achieved as to be unsustainable.”163
2. Rejection of the ‘Right to Family’ Approach

For many years, the decision in Fajujonu served as the legal basis for
acceptance of non-national parents of Irish citizen-children.164 Applications to
remain in Ireland on the basis of parenthood increased during this time.165 As
a result, the Department of Justice changed its policy in 2001 to begin refusing
applications from parents of Irish citizen-children if the family had not been in
Ireland for an “appreciable time.”166 Courts began deciding cases based on
“the overriding need to preserve respect for and the integrity of the asylum and
immigration systems,”167 rather than the familial needs of citizen-children.168
Some judges reasoned that Irish citizen-children were “incapable of making a
choice as to residence,” and parents’ entitlement to remain should not be based
solely on the residence of their children.169
To reconcile their departure from the decision in Fajujonu, judges argued
that immigration conditions in Ireland were very different and more
overwhelming than the conditions in 1989, when Fajujonu was decided.170
Courts reasoned that the influx of immigration was straining social services,
and “integrating people from very different ethnic and cultural backgrounds
into the fabric of Irish society” was increasingly difficult.171 Such a departure
from the reasoning in Fajujonu was necessary “to respect the integrity of the
160. Id. (quoting Fajujonu, 2 I.R. at 164).

161. Id.
162. Id. (quoting Fajujonu, 2 I.R. at 162).
163. Id. (quoting Fajujonu, 2 I.R. at 166); see also Mullally, supra note 153, at 582–83
(discussing the reasoning of the court in the Fajujonu case).
165. Id.; see also Mullally, supra note 153, at 583–84 (discussing a Supreme Court case that
distinguished Fajujonu and argued that any claims made by non-citizen parents on behalf of their
citizen children “were subject to the exigencies of the common good”).
167. Id. at 181–82.
168. See Mullally, supra note 153, at 583 (describing the increase in the number of
applications of immigrant parents claiming residency on the basis of their Irish citizen children).
170. Id. at 184.
171. Id.
systems of immigration control.”172 Courts aimed to prevent a legal regime

that would allow immigrants to use the birth of their children “to circumvent
the immigration and asylum systems.”173
3. Abolition of Unconditional Jus Soli

Although the Irish government supported this shift in policy and responded
by refusing to accept new applications for residence based solely on parental
status, there were subsequently “very few deportations of the parents of Irish
citizen children,”174 and parents continued to immigrate to Ireland and give
birth within the Irish borders.175 The government began using these
applications, however, as grounds to initiate a constitutional amendment to
remove unconditional jus soli completely from the constitution176 “to preserve
the ‘integrity’ of Irish citizenship.”177 The referendum passed in 2004 by an
overwhelming majority,178 and provided that those born in Ireland to non-
citizen parents were not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality.179 One
commentator argues that Ireland’s abandonment of unconditional jus soli “is
not unusual when viewed in comparative terms,” since many states
experiencing significant immigration “often respond by introducing
restrictions.”180
Like Canada and Australia, the response in Ireland to an immigration
influx included an attack on unconditional jus soli citizenship. However,
Ireland was arguably responding to a somewhat different problem, paralleled
in many ways to the immigration debate in the United States. Irish courts
began to recognize the importance of the family and the right of the citizen-
child to the care of a parent. This notion, along with the advantage of jus soli
citizenship for native-born children, led illegal immigrant parents to apply in
large numbers to obtain Irish citizenship. Many apparently perceived such
“citizenship by proxy” as an abuse of the immigration and citizenship system,
and jus soli was eliminated as a result.
172. Id.
173. Id. at 185.
175. Mullally, supra note 153, at 585.
177. Id. at 189.
178. Id. at 190.
179. Id. at 187 (citing Ir. CONST., 1937, art. 9, available at http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/
attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20IrelandNov2004.pdf (last visited Dec. 15,
2008)).
180. Id. at 192.
D. France
1. Current Law
Although citizenship in France is largely based on jus sanguinis principles,
the citizenship laws are supplemented with substantial elements of jus soli
citizenship.181 Under current French law, third-generation immigrants are
automatically granted jus soli citizenship at birth, while second-generation
immigrants are subject to conditional jus soli, being awarded citizenship upon
reaching the age of eighteen and proving residence in France for the preceding
five years, among other conditions.182
2. Jus Soli Extended to Encourage Assimilation and Civic Duties

Before jus soli was incorporated in 1889, French citizenship, defined by
Revolutionary and Napoleonic codifications, was already quite expansive,
“combining the principles of birthplace, descent, and domicile.”183 The
Napoleonic Code adopted the principle of jus sanguinis citizenship, but
Napoleon argued for the inclusion of some elements of jus soli citizenship.184
He was convinced that the interests of the state demanded that military
obligations be imposed on citizens.185 Granting French citizenship to the
children of settled foreigners would allow the French government “to subject
[them] to conscription and other public obligations.”186 Moreover, Napoleon
emphasized the fact that French-born children of settled immigrant parents
“have the French way of thinking, French habits, and the natural attachment
that everyone has for the country in which he was born.”187
Critics of jus soli citizenship insisted that France’s citizenship regime
“reflect an enduring and substantial, not merely an accidental, connection to
France, and that it reflect the will to belong,” addressing concerns over
granting citizenship to children born to transient visitors of France, rather than
181. ROGERS BRUBAKER, CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONHOOD IN FRANCE AND GERMANY 81

(1992). Brubaker argues that although French citizenship is based largely on jus sanguinis
principles, the government supplements its citizenship laws with elements of jus soli principles to
a larger extent than most other Western European countries following jus sanguinis principles.
Id. Brubaker continues by saying that although citizenship laws in France and the United States
have apparent differences (the former based largely on jus sanguinis and the latter based largely
on jus soli), “persons born in France [to foreign parents] and residing there at majority have
French citizenship.” Id. at 82. Thus, despite the differences, the end result in the United States
and France, “as far as second-generation immigrants are concerned,” is similar. Id.
182. Aleinikoff, supra note 36, at 128; see also BRUBAKER, supra note 181, at 81.
183. BRUBAKER, supra note 181, at 86.
184. Id. at 87–88.
185. Id. at 88.
186. Id.
187. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
permanent immigrants living in the country.188 Others felt that granting

citizenship to residents of “foreign origin” would pose a threat to France.189
Thus, in the final version of the Civil Code, children born in France of foreign
parents could only claim French citizenship by declaring their intention to stay
in France or establish their domicile there.190 Such “conditional jus soli”
prevailed “because it would be too unjust and too ill suited to national dignity
to confer French citizenship on a person who, although born in France, had
neither resided in France nor manifested the desire to establish himself
there.”191 For second-generation immigrants, “the presumption of attachment
to France was so strong and self-evident that this group is not even mentioned
in the Civil Code—their citizenship literally went without saying.”192
However, few persons born in France to foreign parents claimed French
citizenship.193 This led to resentment among French citizens, who were
obligated to perform military service, and a view that these foreign citizens
were gaining the benefits of French society while avoiding any civic
responsibilities.194 This response was not surprising, considering the
prevailing view, previously discussed, that military service was necessary to
achieve state interests and prove civic commitment.195 The fact that “long-
established foreigners” were allowed to remain in their homes “while
Frenchmen spent up to five years in the barracks” was viewed as a “shocking
inequality”196 and a potential “impediment to assimilation.”197
Another, less debated problem was the development of cultural enclaves,
with immigrant groups, especially Italian immigrant groups, forming close-
knit, isolated cultural communities within French borders.198 Many viewed the
Italian immigrants’ activities, including forming associations, establishing
journals, and encouraging Italian nationalism, as “politics of isolation” that
“challenged the unitarist French political formula.”199 Granting citizenship,
and thus requiring military service, to native-born children of immigrants was

189. Patrick Weil, Nationalities and Citizenships: The Lessons of the French Experience for
Germany and Europe (George Lavy & Josh Gibson, trans.), in CITIZENSHIP, NATIONALITY AND
MIGRATION IN EUROPE 74, 77 (David Cesarani & Mary Fulbrook eds., 1996).
190. BRUBAKER, supra note 181, at 88–89.
191. Id. at 89 (internal quotation marks omitted).
192. Id.
193. Id. at 91.
194. See id.; Weil, supra note 189, at 77.
196. Id. at 105.
197. Id. at 108.
198. See id. at 105.
199. Id. at 105–06; see also Weil, supra note 189, at 78 (discussing the development of jus
soli as a means to prevent “individual disloyalty” and “collective separatism” among immigrant
groups).
viewed as a means to ensure assimilation and civic commitment among the

immigrant communities in France,200 and thus prevent disloyalty.201 Thus, jus
soli was extended to third-generation immigrants in 1851, and conditional jus
soli was extended to second-generation immigrants in 1889.202
Such conditional and unconditional distinctions for second- and third-
generation immigrants, respectively, are not surprising when viewed in the
context of the development of jus soli citizenship in France described above.
Third-generation immigrants have presumably proven their civic commitment
to the nation, by virtue of being removed from their ancestor’s homeland by at
least an entire generation. These individuals are viewed as “French from the
point of view of spirit, inclination, habits, and morals.”203 Second-generation
immigrants are entitled to citizenship, but they face additional hurdles to prove
their civil commitment since they are not as far removed from their parents’
non-French home country.
Interestingly, unlike Canada, Australia, or Ireland, France responded to
resentment toward immigrants and their perceived abuses of the French
citizenship system by actually expanding citizenship laws. One commentator
argues that extending citizenship to children of immigrants was somewhat
illogical in that “resentment of the privileged situation of established
immigrants [led] to a more inclusive definition of citizenship,” rather than a
more exclusive approach.204 He argues that, at the time jus soli became the
policy in France, French society and government’s “distinctively state-centered
and assimilationist understanding[s] of nationhood, deeply rooted in political
and cultural geography,” largely determined their notion of what was in the
best interest of the state.205 Those shaping policy in France began to view the
exclusion of citizenship to native-born children of immigrants “as anomalous
and intolerable.”206 Instead, the “civic and military incorporation” of the
children of immigrants was viewed “as natural and necessary.”207 Permitting
French-born children of immigrants to claim French citizenship was intended
“to expand and strengthen the nation, not to dilute its ethnocultural
substance.”208
200. BRUBAKER, supra note 181, at 108; see also id. at 152 (referring to the granting of
birthright citizenship to third-generation immigrants and stating that “birth (and presumed
residence) in France over two successive generations reliably indicated an enduring attachment to
France”).
201. Weil, supra note 189, at 78.
203. Weil, supra note 189, at 78.
205. Id. at 85–86.
206. Id. at 86.
207. Id.
208. Id. at 91.
IV. LESSONS LEARNED FROM CANADA, AUSTRALIA, IRELAND, AND FRANCE:

PROPOSING A SOLUTION
This Comment in no way intends to propose an extremely well-considered
solution to the problem of birthright citizenship and de facto deportation of
citizen-children born to illegal immigrant parents. The following suggestions
for reform of birthright citizenship do not include a well-examined or well-
researched assessment of the potential consequences, costs, or implications for
such a reform of birthright citizenship. Instead, this Comment merely
emphasizes that any approach taken by the U.S. government must not only
consider the practical consequences of de facto deportation, but must also
consider the experiences and reactions of countries with similar laws and
similar immigration issues.
The previous discussion of the treatment of jus soli citizenship in Canada,
Australia, and Ireland contains a general theme: when faced with an
exponential influx of immigrants and subsequent “anchor baby” births, these
nations have responded by abolishing unconditional jus soli from the nations’
laws. Although Canada has yet to officially reject jus soli, the arguments in
favor of abolishing it seem to remain. Apparently, the solution in Canada,
Australia, and Ireland to an increasing number of “anchor babies” is to
disallow children of illegal immigrants to obtain citizenship automatically at
birth.
In contrast, France responded to similar immigration problems by
expanding citizenship laws. It appears that the goal was to facilitate
assimilation and civic attachment, and thereby decrease resentment from
native-born Frenchmen. More importantly, the French method of granting
citizenship may serve as a model for revising America’s citizenship laws
without abolishing birthright citizenship completely. To negate concerns over
granting citizenship to children of migrants simply “passing through,” the
French Civil Code grants citizenship to second-generation immigrants only
upon reaching the age of majority and by establishing their domicile in France.
Third-generation immigrants still enjoy unconditional jus soli citizenship at
birth.
It seems plausible that such a system could be established in the United
States. Instead of revoking jus soli citizenship completely, legislators could
simply place conditions on second-generation immigrants’ birthright
citizenship. Without changing current jus sanguinis citizenship and
naturalization processes, the United States could amend unconditional jus soli
to require that the parent lawfully reside in the United States for a number of
years, or that the child reside in the United States for a number of years and
reach the age of majority before citizenship is conferred. Such a system may
decrease the number of illegal immigrant births and resolve the problem of de
facto deportation, since illegal immigrant parents would no longer have an
automatic claim to U.S. residency simply by virtue of their child’s citizenship

status. If birth alone does not bestow citizenship, “there is less concern that
undocumented migrants may try to ‘manufacture’ equity by having
children.”209
T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Douglas Klusmeyer are authors and
researchers who, as part of the Comparative Citizenship Project of the
Carnegie Endowment’s International Migration Policy Program, have
extensively investigated and compared citizenship policies in liberal-
democratic states that have experienced large-scale immigration.210 They have
proposed a similar approach to citizenship classification that would utilize
generations as the category of analysis.211 They recommend that third-
generation foreign nationals be entitled to citizenship at birth, while second-
generation foreign nationals acquire citizenship from a modified jus soli
rule.212 Second-generation immigrants could acquire citizenship if they satisfy
two requirements: birth in the territory and either residence of the child for a
number of years prior to adulthood or lawful residence of the parent.213 In
either case, whether citizenship is granted based on the child’s residence in the
state for a period of time or based on the parent’s lawful residence in the
state,214 such a birthright citizenship regime will presumably negate any attack
on the child’s tenuous relation to the state in which he is granted citizenship.
CONCLUSION
De facto deportation of citizen-children is an undeniable result of the
deportation of illegal immigrant parents. Despite arguments that the child may
be free to return to “reclaim” his citizenship status, such a practice leaves the
child with two undesirable choices. It forces the child either to relocate to
another country and stay with his parent or to remain in the United States and
suffer the consequences of having his parent deported. The United States
simply cannot continue the practice of birthright citizenship simultaneously
with its current policy of deporting illegal immigrant parents with little regard
for the citizenship status of their children. Unlimited jus soli citizenship must
be abandoned in favor of a system that delays the grant of citizenship rights for
children of illegal immigrants until the parent or child satisfy a number of
prerequisites. These prerequisites should generally be aimed at encouraging
children to establish relationships with the United States beyond simply their
birth within U.S. borders.
209. ALEINIKOFF & KLUSMEYER, supra note 42, at 12.

210. See Klusmeyer, supra note 93, at 2.
211. ALEINIKOFF & KLUSMEYER, supra note 42, at 7–8.
212. Id. at 8, 12.
213. Id. at 12.
214. Id.
Since immigration woes are undoubtedly not uniquely American,

lawmakers should consider the approaches taken by other western democratic
states in establishing a workable and fair immigration and citizenship system.
Australia and Ireland reacted to immigrant influxes and “anchor baby” births
by abolishing unconditional jus soli citizenship in favor of jus sanguinis
models. Similarly, strong arguments exist in Canada to do the same. France
reacted by establishing a conditional jus soli citizenship regime, which this
Comment references as a potential workable solution for the United States.
Whatever the solution, birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants
simply cannot coexist with the current U.S. policy of deporting illegal
immigrant parents.
AMANDA COLVIN*
* J.D. Candidate, Saint Louis University School of Law, 2009. I wish to thank my husband Jason
for his continuous love and support throughout my long academic journey. I also wish to thank
my family for giving me the tools to succeed and Professor Nancy Kaufman for guiding me
through the writing process.

Saint Louis University Law Journal Saint Louis University Law Journal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saint Louis University Law Journal Saint Louis University Law Journal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saint Louis University Law Journal Saint Louis University Law Journal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saint Louis University Law Journal

Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Realities of De Facto

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj

Part of the Law Commons

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES: REALITIES

[W]e are a nation of immigrants who, through citizenship, seek to fully

1. John S. Cummins, Naturalization and Birthright Citizenship Should Be Encouraged, in

220 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 53:219

9. Coleman, 454 F. Supp. 2d at 760.

2008] BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES 221

deportation of the parent often results in de facto deportation of the citizen-

I. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES

222 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 53:219

A. The Statistics of Illegal Immigration and Birthright Citizenship

2008] BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES 223

With such high numbers of American-born children with illegal immigrant

B. Birthright Citizenship: The Debate

1. Maintain Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants and

224 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 53:219

Proponents of birthright citizenship also offer practical arguments in favor

2. Abolition of Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants

2008] BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES 225

such as the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), argue that

C. Pending Congressional Responses

226 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 53:219

II. DE FACTO DEPORTATION

2008] BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES 227

228 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 53:219

B. De Facto Deportation: A Practical Perspective

2008] BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES 229

Not only is there international recognition of a child’s right to familial

230 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 53:219

destroys their right to live in an intact family.”83 De facto deportation is real,

C. De Facto Deportation: Legislation

2008] BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES 231

III. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN OTHER WESTERN

232 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 53:219

1. History of Jus Soli

2. Jus Soli Comes Under Fire

98. Citizenship Act, R.S.C., ch. C-29 (1985).

2008] BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES 233

questioned.”109 Apparently, birthright citizenship did not come under serious

109. Sarah Buhler, Babies as Bargaining Chips? In Defence of Birthright Citizenship in

234 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 53:219

119. Id. at 862.

2008] BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES 235

birthright citizenship can only be sufficiently remedied by a change in the law

2. Elimination of Unconditional Jus Soli Citizenship

a. Large-Scale Migration Program

236 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 53:219

citizenship as essential to immigrants’ integration into Australian society.136

b. The End of Jus Soli

2008] BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES 237

advantage.”146 The Australian Citizenship Council, which supported removal

146. Rubenstein, supra note 133, at 588–89.

238 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 53:219

1. Jus Soli as a Means for Illegal Immigrant Parents to Resist

2008] BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES 239