Vance v. Terrazas (1980) pg 1360 [White] Dual C from birth, at 22 gets certif. of allegiance in Mex, says expressly renouncing. State Dept says loss of C. § 349(a)(2) lose C if make oath/allegiance to another country govt – – must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, and voluntariness of the expat conduct is rebuttably presumed. Court reads intent” into statute saving construction. “specific – Question of standard of proof Held: Preponderence is ok. This is lower than criminal reqs! Characterize as Civil (even said didn’t threaten loss of liberty!). Stevens disagrees great loss of liberty – Cong enforces 14A and created lower courts (so can create standards of proof) but this presumes 14th also gives power – to TAKE C, not just give. Nishikawa not a problem, as was about statutory interp, no const holding. Cong changed, see no reason to overturn. Dissent/Concur even if Cong can set the standards, still – obligated to review. Presumption of voluntariness Gov’t doesn’t have to show much evidence Court ok, because still – have to show intent. Duress as a defense. Brennan dissent can only Formally renounce. – Intent to Maintain C State Dept has changed, list of actions on intent to maintain C Pay taxes, keep passport. Acknowledge can do some expat acts and still want to be a C Now presumption to keep citizenship when naturalized abroad. Part II: The Statutory and Administrative Regulation of Immigration Admissions Categories The Federal Bureaucracy Post 9/11, DHS created, merging of agencies References to the AG still, but deemed to mean head to new dept INS references are either USCIS, ICE or CBP Removed INS from DOJ separation of enforcement and – adjudication functions CBP Customs and Border Protection (DHS) – Enforcement, border inspections at all points of entry
Vance v. Terrazas (1980) pg 1360 [White] Dual C from birth, at 22 gets certif. of allegiance in Mex, says expressly renouncing. State Dept says loss of C. § 349(a)(2) – lose C if make oath/allegiance to another country – govt must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, and voluntariness of the expat conduct is rebuttably presumed. Court reads “specific intent” into statute – saving construction. Question of standard of proof Held: Preponderence is ok. This is lower than criminal reqs! Characterize as Civil (even said didn’t threaten loss of liberty!). Stevens disagrees – great loss of liberty Cong enforces 14A and created lower courts (so can create standards of proof) – but this presumes 14th also gives power to TAKE C, not just give. Nishikawa not a problem, as was about statutory interp, no const holding. Cong changed, see no reason to overturn. Dissent/Concur – even if Cong can set the standards, still obligated to review. Presumption of voluntariness Gov’t doesn’t have to show much evidence – Court ok, because still have to show intent. Duress as a defense. Brennan dissent – can only Formally renounce. Intent to Maintain C State Dept has changed, list of actions on intent to maintain C Pay taxes, keep passport. Acknowledge can do some expat acts and still want to be a C Now presumption to keep citizenship when naturalized abroad. Part II: The Statutory and Administrative Regulation of Immigration Admissions Categories The Federal Bureaucracy Post 9/11, DHS created, merging of agencies References to the AG still, but deemed to mean head to new dept INS references are either USCIS, ICE or CBP Removed INS from DOJ – separation of enforcement and adjudication functions CBP – Customs and Border Protection (DHS) Enforcement, border inspections at all points of entry
Immigration_Outline_Rodriguez_2010.docx