By Ashley Li and Enoch Pei
近期出現了一起有趣案件，該案涉及到1952年《移民與國籍法》是否違憲問題. 美國最高法院決定將于近期受理該案，其最終裁決的結果有可能引發重溫舊法規的浪潮。
2000年，路易斯.雷蒙.莫拉萊斯-桑塔納因盜竊，搶劫，謀殺未遂等多項重罪被林奇檢察官依法起訴，并被法庭判以驅逐出境。莫拉萊斯-桑塔納1962年出生于多米尼加共和國，其父親是美國公民而母親不是，从移民法角度，是一名非美國本土出生的私生子。莫拉萊斯-桑塔納后來搬到了美國并于1975年獲得美國永久居留權，他一直沒有申請成为美國公民。
莫拉萊斯-桑塔納對驅逐出境判決結果提出了異議，稱其出生时，其父是美國公民，故他自出生之日起便自動承襲美國公民身份，不應被驅逐出境。
（美共和党总统竞选人可鲁兹（Cruz）也是出生在美国外，因其父亲的公民身份而自動承襲美國公民身份，有竞选资格的。）
但是，莫拉萊斯-桑塔納父親在其出生时，未能滿足1952年《移民與國籍法》中有關在美國居住時間的最低要求，法庭故而否決了他的異議，認為根据当时《移民與國籍法》莫拉萊斯-桑塔納沒有承襲美國公民的資格。
1952年頒布的《移民與國籍法》對于承襲美國公民資格的要求，对公民母亲的孩子与公民父亲的孩子，却是要求不同。在美國本土外出生的非婚生子女，其父親是美國公民而母親不是美國公民的，要求其父親累積在美國居住10年以上，并且至少有5年是在14歲以后；而如果該子女父親不是美國公民而母親是美國公民，則只要求母親在子女出生前在美國持續居住1年以上。
莫拉萊斯-桑塔納的律师隨即要求重審，理由是1952年《移民與國籍法》的規定涉及性別歧視，違反了《美國憲法修正案》第五條“平等保護”的原則。然而，其提出的動議被下级法院否決。
美國第二巡回上訴法院對其進行了審查，并于2015年撤銷了否決，確定了莫拉萊斯-桑塔納自出生起就是美國公民的身份，并將其遺回候審。第二巡回上訴法院給出的兩點理由是：其一，莫拉萊斯-桑塔納的父親滿足《移民與國籍法》中對公民母親的要求，如果單單以母親而非父親的條件來看，所有人都無法否認莫拉萊斯-桑塔納自出生之日起就是美國公民。其二， 就1952年《移民與國籍法》對于承襲美國公民資格中涉及到父母居住時間的規定，法院表示，沒有发现任何理由显示未婚父親需要比未婚母親出示更多的證明時間。
目前第二巡回上訴法院向上级申請的復審令已獲得批準，关于1952年《移民與國籍法》是否违宪的问题，有望于2016年秋季在最高法院取得進展。
There is an interesting and currently developing case that has reached the Supreme Court regarding gender equality and U.S. citizenship. The case, Lynch v. Morales-Santana, is about a felony convicted individual fighting against deportation on the grounds of derivative U.S. citizenship. The individual, Luis Ramon Morales-Santana, was born out of wedlock outside of the U.S. while his father was a U.S. citizen but mother was not. Under law dating back to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, an individual born out of wedlock outside of the U.S. to a father with U.S. citizenship and to a mother without, must have had his/her father accumulate a minimum of ten years residence in the U.S. with at least five of which after the age of fourteen. But an individual born out of wedlock outside of the U.S. to a mother with U.S. citizenship and a father without, must only have had his/her mother reside in the U.S. for a continuous period of one year at some point before the child’s birth. Morales-Santana, born in 1962 in the Dominican Republic, was not born into citizenship and instead was admitted to the U.S. in 1975 as a lawful permanent resident. In the year 2000, when Morales-Santana was charged and convicted of various felonies from burglary, robbery, and attempted murder, he was placed in removal proceedings for deportation.
Remember Ted Cruz gained his citizenship through being born to his citizen father.
Morales-Santa fought the deportation on the basis of derivative citizenship obtained through his father, but was denied because his father did not fulfill the necessary decade minimum residing requirements in the U.S. When Morales-Santana filed a motion to reopen grounded on gender-based inequality and violation of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, the motion was also denied.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the denied motion and on July 2015 reversed the denial, concluded Morales-Santana as a citizen from birth, and remanded for further proceedings. Simply put, it was agreed by both parties that if Morales-Santa’s mother had been a U.S. citizen instead of the father, then Morales-Santa would have been born a U.S. citizen since his mother fulfilled the one year residential prerequisite. The court saw no reason and no justification for why unwed fathers needed more time in the U.S. than unwed mothers prior to a child’s birth in order for that child to be born abroad as a U.S. citizen. More specifically, the court saw no reason for how unwed fathers needed more time than unwed mothers to assimilate and pass on the values that the 1952 Act sought to ensure, to citizen children born abroad.
The constitutionality of citizenship law is being questioned in this case and the final results may revisit old statutes for congressional change. A petition for writ of certiorari has been granted to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and progress from the Supreme Court is expected in the Fall of 2016.
