Citizenship generally extends to people born or naturalized in the U.S. Immigration law applies to people who do not have citizenship. Only in rare cases may citizenship be lost after it has been acquired.
Elk v. Wilkins 一 There are only two sources of citizenship: birth and naturalization. People not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 一 The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance, and under the protection of the U.S., including most children born here to resident foreign nationals.
Trop v. Dulles 一 Citizenship is not subject to the general powers of the national government, and therefore it cannot be divested in the exercise of those powers.
Afroyim v. Rusk 一 Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of their U.S. citizenship, absent their voluntary renunciation of it.
Vance v. Terrazas 一 In establishing loss of citizenship, the government must prove an intent to surrender U.S. citizenship, rather than just the voluntary commission of an expatriating act, such as swearing allegiance to a foreign nation.
Fedorenko v. U.S. 一 There must be strict compliance with all the congressionally imposed prerequisites to the acquisition of citizenship. Failure to comply with any of these conditions renders the certificate of citizenship illegally procured, and naturalization that is unlawfully procured can be set aside.
Although the Constitution does not specifically discuss immigration, this power falls within the exclusive authority of the federal government. In early immigration cases, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has plenary power to regulate this area.
Chae Chan Ping v. U.S. 一 The power of Congress to exclude foreign nationals from the U.S. is an incident of sovereignty that cannot be surrendered by the treaty-making power. When a treaty and a federal law conflict, the more recent source of law controls.
Nishimura Ekiu v. U.S. 一 It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicile or residence within the U.S., nor even been admitted into the U.S. pursuant to law, shall be permitted to enter in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government.
Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. 一 An order of deportation is not a punishment for a crime, and this does not deprive a foreign national of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Deciding whether foreign nationals may be permitted to stay in the U.S. falls within the authority of the political departments of government, and courts cannot express opinions on the wisdom, policy, or justice of measures enacted by Congress in this area.
Foreign nationals who have been admitted to the U.S. have certain constitutional rights, such as due process and equal protection. However, Congress may have greater discretion than state and local governments in treating foreign nationals differently from citizens.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins 一 The Fourteenth Amendment extends to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. Thus, foreign nationals who have the right to temporarily or permanently reside in the U.S. are entitled to equal protection.
Wong Wing v. U.S. 一 All persons within the territory of the U.S. are entitled to the protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Foreign nationals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor may they be held to answer for a “capital or other infamous crime” unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.
Graham v. Richardson 一 State statutes that deny welfare benefits to resident foreign nationals, or to foreign nationals who have not resided in the U.S. for a specified number of years, violate the Equal Protection Clause and encroach on the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of foreign nationals.
Mathews v. Diaz 一 The fact that a federal law treats foreign nationals differently from citizens does not by itself imply that such disparate treatment is invidious. Congress has broad power over immigration and naturalization and regularly makes rules regarding foreign nationals that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza 一 Consistent with the civil nature of a deportation proceeding, various protections that apply in the context of a criminal trial do not apply in a deportation hearing. (This case involved the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule.)