
U.S. nationals born in American Samoa sue for citizenship - kimsk112
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/u-s-nationals-born-american-samoa-sue-citizenship-n860721
======
sykh
I was born in the Canal Zone when it was a U.S. territory. Both parents were
American. By an act of Congress I am a natural born citizen. I’ve always been
under the impression that it was well established that it is a power of the
government to manage citizenship status for possessions/territories and
whatnot. I’m surprised if there is any legal merit to the challenge. Though I
do hope they win.

I went to American schools in the Canal Zone. I don’t speak Spanish and I
always thought of myself as American. When I came to the U.S. to live my
expectations about America did not correspond to reality. As time goes on this
chasm is increasing. I’ve been in the U.S. for 30 years now. Samoans may end
up regretting if they win!

~~~
UncleEntity
Yep, can run for president too as was determined when John McCain ran even
though he was born in the Canal Zone.

And technically the Canal Zone was always part of Panama proper with the US
leasing the land on a perpetual basis while US Samoa is "owned".

~~~
shliachtx
John McCain also had American parents, so he was a natural-born citizen
anyhow.

~~~
lotsofpulp
I was looking up to see if that was true, and boy does it get complicated!

[https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-
par...](https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents)

~~~
kolpa
The basic case (John McCain's case) is simple:

In general, a Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth when the
Child’s Parents Are Married to each other at the Time of Birth IF... Both
parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, AND... At least one parent
lived in the U.S. or its territories prior to the birth

Canal Zone is a US territory.

OP's case is interesting because the petitioner's parents are not citizens.

~~~
googlryas
So, if both of my parents are US citizens, but not married, and I'm physically
born in India(which doesn't have birthright citizenship) - am I a citizen of
no country?

~~~
thaumasiotes
Assuming your mother has ever spent one continuous year within the US, you are
a US citizen from birth.

~~~
masonic
Which is exactly why Obama qualified as a citizen regardless of where he was
born. Since his parents were not legally married, only the mother's
citizenship mattered.

------
whb07
The concept of citizenship is all super squirrelly in the U.S as a whole. Take
for example rich foreigners who fly in their pregnant wives to give birth at
XYZ hospital, and immediately confer their children citizenship.

How is that okay? Totally skip all laws and regulations by simply flying a
couple weeks prior to the due date and voila! Screw everyone else waiting in
line.

source: know people who have done this for each of their four kids.

~~~
vowelless
> Totally skip all laws

What law are they breaking or skipping? This is perfectly legal (in fact,
backed by the US Constitution) and IMHO one of the great aspects of the US
(policy of _jus soli_ ).

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli)

~~~
whb07
Well back in the 18th century, travel across continents was longer than 24
hours. They are not breaking any laws, but the entire point of immigration is
null and void if more people did this.

I’m actually pro free borders. But as it stands this is a weird way of abusing
the current system.

------
huy-nguyen
John Oliver segment on this:
[https://youtu.be/CesHr99ezWE](https://youtu.be/CesHr99ezWE). The part about
American Samoa starts at 7:30.

------
pseingatl
@sykh: But a child of Panamanian citizens born in Gorgas Hospital was not be
entitled to U.S. citizenship.And let's not forget that a child of a U.S.
citizen father is treated differently from a child of a U.S. citizen mother.
The Canal Zone was always half-in, half-out.

------
spraak
> The local American Samoan government has before taken a nuanced view over
> the issue, given concern about how aspects of Samoan life and culture “would
> be jeopardized if subjected to scrutiny under the 14th Amendment,” according
> to court documents filed in 2014 by lawyers representing the government

I wonder why the government wouldn't want that, and what ways they think it
would jeopardize the culture.

~~~
throw_away
I was curious as well and I think I figured it out:

[https://books.google.com/books?id=e_tKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=P...](https://books.google.com/books?id=e_tKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=fa%27asamoa+14th+amendment&source=bl&ots=MiAI5AUD_D&sig=_89O3HcHT4jICb6am-0AM-
DAYbU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwialJ7-vo_aAhVO6mMKHcrPCw8Q6AEIfTAH#v=onepage&q=fa'asamoa%2014th%20amendment&f=false)

American Samoa has laws that say that only American Samoans can own land or be
a member of their local government. What the 14th Amendment may give them in
terms of US citizenship, the 14th Amendment takes away with regard to these
exclusionary laws.

~~~
dragonwriter
> What the 14th Amendment may give them in terms of US citizenship, the 14th
> Amendment takes away with regard to these exclusionary laws.

Except it doesn't. Even if the term “United States” in the first clause might
be argued to include the whole territory of the nation called the “United
States” and not just specifically the constituent states (which is the crux of
the citizenship argument), that doesn't imply that the word “State” in the
remainder of the Amendment means something other than the individual states of
the Union. And all the restrictions are of the form “No State shall...”

~~~
roywiggins
I know that Constitutional protections don't apply in their entirety in Puerto
Rico, so I imagine there's ways in which it has been construed similarly in
American Samoa. If it's not an incorporated territory (just an island the US
happens to own), they are treated differently.

~~~
jcranmer
Puerto Rico is, like American Samoa, an unincorporated territory. Well, the
government doesn't consider it incorporated, although some legal scholars
suggest that Congress did end up incorporating it at some point via
accumulation of various acts (the argument has not, to my knowledge, been
tried in court).

------
bluetwo
Statehood for all territories.

~~~
apotheothesomai
We should be reluctant to grant statehood for many small territories.

Our senate is undemocratic enough, where a state with 1/7th the population of
California, viz. Wyoming, gets the same numbers of senators.

Guam, including resident military personnel, has 1/4 the population of
Wyoming. Does it make sense to grant 160K people all the powers of full
statehood? American Samoa has 1/3 the population of Guam, so two senators for
slightly over 50K people. That's 84 times the per capita representation in the
Senate.

The Pacific territories should really just become part of the state of Hawaii.
They can have special status within the state, so their needs don't get
ignored by the larger Hawaiian population.

~~~
wffurr
Then we should just fix or abolish the senate. It's incredibly undemocratic.

~~~
dragonwriter
The Constitution prohibits that even by Constitutional Amendment (seriously,
the one thing an Amendment _cannot_ do is mess with representation in the
Senate), though it doesn't prohibit stripping the Senate of all of its
functions and giving them to some new body.

~~~
wffurr
Then we should just fix or abolish the United States Constitution, it's
incredibly undemocratic.

~~~
tonyztan
Some individual rights need to be protected against the "tyranny of the
majority." For example, a person with an unpopular view should still enjoy
free speech. And of course, a majority should not be allowed to vote to
enslave a minority.

~~~
wffurr
That's a great argument for the 1st and 13th amendments. Perhaps those should
actually be written in to the new document itself. We could even go further
and adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That doesn't change the fact that the American three branch bicameral system
has not aged well and is profoundly undemocratic by design.

------
205guy
I would point out that this article focuses on Samoans who work in Utah, home
of the Mormon Church. Sure enough, Mormons have an odd zeal to convert Samoans
and bring them into their church [1]. So while the actions of individuals can
be taken at face value, it's also worthwhile to point out what organizations
and other influences may be behind this, and consider whether that aligns with
the interests of all who come from and/or live in American Samoa.

[1] [https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1994/01/saving-
samoans/](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1994/01/saving-samoans/)

------
your-nanny
In my ignorance I thought birth in any us territories conferred citizenship.

~~~
jcranmer
The US has a concept of incorporated territories versus unincorporated
territories, with the difference being whether or not the constitution is
meant to fully apply (It's effectively a legalistic distinction between
"state-to-be" and "colony"). The only remaining incorporated territory is the
uninhabited Palmyra Atoll (created by removing it from Hawaii when Hawaii
became a state).

Since unincorporated territories are not meant to be thought of as the United
States proper, provisions like birthright citizenship don't apply. I don't
think all of the relevant claims have been litigated before the Supreme Court.
Since the Insular Cases in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has
slowly walked back some of the distinctions. In addition, Congress has
expressly granted many rights (such as citizenship, not mere nationality) to
Puerto Rico, which is the substantial portion of the territories.

~~~
kolpa
I mean the Declaration of Independence was pretty clearly a strong statement
against the whole concept of "unincorporated territories", but what's
obligatory on the goose isn't always accepted by the gander.

~~~
jcranmer
SCOTUS has more or less ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to
unincorporated territories (and even extraterritorial jurisdiction, as Bush
Jr. found out).

One complication is that, as the Declaration of Independence forcefully points
out, the fundamental issue is the right of people to alter their government if
they view it as destructive to inalienable, natural rights--and most of the
people in these territories actually like the status quo political situation
(cf. the several Puerto Rico status referendums which generally all signify a
plurality preference for status quo, even if the legal viability of the status
quo is questionable).

------
mi100hael
_> Around elections, “I sit quietly at my cubicle, and don’t say a word"_

Now if only we could get citizens to follow suit.

