Supreme Court denies appeal for U.S. citizenship for American Samoans

Congressional Delegate Eni F. H. Faleomavaega speaks about the 

citizenship status of American Samoans

IT WAS SAMOANS vs. Samoans that made it easier for the U.S. Supreme Court to turn down an appeal that would have granted automatic citizenship to residents of American Samoa.

By declining to review the appeal of Tuaua vs. the United States today (June 13), the decision of the lower court stands. American Samoa is the only overseas U.S. territory without birthright U.S. citizenship.

Plaintiff Leneuoti Tuaua

“We’re obviously very disappointed. This means there will be many Samoans living in California, including veterans, who will not be able to vote in November,” said Neil Weare, a civil rights lawyer and president of We the People Project, which sponsored the lawsuit brought by the Samoan Federation of America, based in Carson, California.

Current law considers American Samoans to be “nationals,” not full citizens like those born in Puerto Rico, Guam and other U.S. territories. Nationals are allowed to work and live anywhere in the United States, but unlike citizens, they can’t vote or hold elective office. 

RELATED: Last chance for U.S. citizenship for American Samoa

The territory has a population of roughly 55,000 but it also affects the thousands of Samoans who reside on the mainland and Hawaii. There are about 61,000 American Samoans living in California and another 60,000 living in the other states.

Those born in the other U.S. territories -- Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Marianas -- all get citizenship at birth, but that was determined by statute in Congress. No such statute exists for American Samoa.

The challengers said that the law violates the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last year that birthright citizenship does not automatically apply to the nation’s unincorporated political territories.

RELATED: Why the court denied citizeneship to American Samoa

The government of American Samoa opposes birthright citizenship, arguing that unique Samoan cultural traditions "might be threatened by a fundamental change in the status of the American Samoan people." The leaders believe that if full citizenship rights were given to their residents, they would lose autonomy over local laws, which includes a law that allows the land to be communally owned by Samoan families. About 90 percent of American Samoa falls under this status. The land cannot be sold or rented to anyone "whose blood is less than one-half Samoan."

The territory's leaders said that "whether birthright citizenship should extend to the people of American Samoa is a question for the people of American Samoa and its elected representatives, and not for this (Supreme) Court to decide."

The lower court ruled that under the Insular cases distinction, birthright citizenship is not a "fundamental" right owed to the "unincorporated" territories. The Insular cases is a set of laws based on racist views of the early 20th century that didn't think the Samoans were intellectually capable of ruling themselves.

The main plaintiff in the original suit is  Leneuoti Tuaua, who says he was denied a job in a California law enforcement agency because he was not a citizen.

American Samoans can claim U.S. citizenship if one of their parents is a citizen or by residing in a U.S. state. After three months they can begin the naturalization process which takes five years.

The other option would be to have a U.S. Congressional representative champion their cause with legislation.

###

For more news about Asian/Americans & Pacific Islanders, read AsAm News.

Supreme Court: Case submitted; last chance for U.S. citizenship for American Samoans

Leneuoti Tuaua is lead plaintiff in the case submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.

ATTORNEYS representing a group of American Samoans seeking U.S. citizenship Monday (Feb. 1) asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case.

The case, which if successful would recognize a constitutional right to citizenship for those born in the U.S. Pacific territory, was rejected last summer by a federal district court and appellate panel.

Tuaua v. United States is a federal lawsuit brought by Leneuoti Tuaua, the Samoan Federation of America, and others born in American Samoa who believe that so long as American Samoa is a part of the United States, people born in American Samoa have the birthright to U.S. citizenship under the Constitution.

“My passport says I am a U.S. national, but not a U.S. citizen. As someone born on U.S. soil who signed up for the draft during the Vietnam War, my family should not be treated as second-class Americans. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree the Constitution does not allow Congress to create two separate classes of Americans,” said Leneuoti Tuaua, lead plaintiff in the case. 

Three of the five Tuaua plaintiffs are veterans; American Samoa has among the highest rates of U.S. military service in the nation, with casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan more than seven times the national average.

Plaintiffs are represented by Neil Weare, president of We the People Project, a national organization dedicated to achieving equal rights and representation for the nearly 5 million Americans living in U.S. territories and the District of Columbia; Arnold & Porter, LLP, an international law firm; and Charles V. Ala'ilima, a prominent American Samoan attorney.

Former Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, who has a winning record of arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, also represents them.

Under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, anybody born within the United States is automatically considered an American citizen. However, courts have interpreted that to mean only the 50 states.

RELATED: Why the courts ruled against U.S. citizenship for American Samoans

In other territories like Guam, birthright citizenship is extended through congressional legislation.

Currently, the 55,500 or so American Samoans are considered non-citizen nationals, meaning they don’t have voting rights in federal elections and can’t work in government jobs. They can apply for citizenship, but that is a long drawn-out process and there’s no guarantee they’ll be approved.

Ironically, the President Obama's Department of Justice lawyers' argument against citizenship is based on a set of century-old laws called the Insular Cases steeped in racist language.

RELATED: Comedian John Oliver explains the racism vs. America Samoa

"A lot of people are justifiably embarrassed by the Insular Cases because they really do capture an earlier imperial moment that is saturated in white supremacy," says Sanford Levinson, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law.

In subsequent cases, the courts have seen fit to grant citizenship to the other U.S. territories including Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Marianas but denied that same privilege to the American Samoans.

But it gets even more complicated. It appears that a lot of Samoan officials are reluctant to give up their status because it would also mean the loss of local statutes that give Samoans control of over 90% of the land.

The High Court will look over the case and if four of the nine jurists decide the case merits a hearing the entire court will hear oral arguments. If the court refuses a hearing, the ruling of the lower courts will stand.

For more news about Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders, go to AsAm News.

Why the court denied birthright citizenship to American Samoans

A WASHINGTON DC Circuit Court panel ruled unanimously June 5 against citizenship for American Samoans. What is especially surprising, is that the Justice Department under President Obama, is arguing against granting birthright citizenship using outdated racist laws that was used to justify racially segregated schools. The Supreme Court overrode those same -some say "racist" - laws to outlaw segregated schools in the landmark decision Brown v. Board of Education.

Tuaua v. United States is a federal lawsuit brought by Leneuoti Tuaua, the Samoan Federation of America, and others born in American Samoa who believe that so long as American Samoa is a part of the United States, people born in American Samoa have the birthright to U.S. citizenship under the Constitution.

Plaintiffs are represented by Neil Weare, president of We the People Project, a national organization dedicated to achieving equal rights and representation for the nearly 5 million Americans living in U.S. territories and the District of Columbia; Arnold & Porter, LLP, an international law firm; and Charles V. Ala'ilima, a prominent American Samoan attorney.

The lead plaintiff, Tuaua, who resides in California, was denied an opportunity to join a California police agency because he is not a citizen. Currently, the 55,500 or so American Samoans are considered non-citizen nationals, meaning they don’t have voting rights in federal elections and can’t work in government jobs. They can apply for citizenship, but that is a long drawn-out process and there’s no guarantee they’ll be approved.

Despite the double-standard applied to American Samoans'
citizenship claims, enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces is
among the highest in America.

The U.S. Justice attorneys relied heavily on the controversial Insular Cases as precedent for denial of citizenship to the American Samoans. According to a Mother Jones article:

Justice Henry Brown—famous as the author of Plessy v. Ferguson, which gave the court's blessing to segregation—refers to the inhabitants of the new territories as "savage" and "alien races" in the Insular Cases. Brown contended that Congress would treat the territories well because it was guided by "certain principles of natural justice inherent in the Anglo-Saxon character." His colleague, Justice Edward White, hypothesized in one case that granting citizenship to an "uncivilized race" in a new territory would "inflict grave detriment on the United States" from "the immediate bestowal of citizenship on those absolutely unfit to receive it."

"A lot of people are justifiably embarrassed by the Insular Cases because they really do capture an earlier imperial moment that is saturated in white supremacy," says Sanford Levinson, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas-Austin School of Law.

In subsequent cases, the courts have seen fit to grant citizenship to the other U.S. territories including Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Marianas but denied that same privilege to the American Samoans.

In this day and age and under this administration, it is surprising that the government, which has argued on behalf of immigration reform, would rely on a set of racist laws to justify its current position towards the islanders.

Although the Justice Department is required to defend acts of Congress, the administration can on occasion opt out of defending a law it believes is unconstitutional. (The Obama administration's refusal in 2011 to defend part of the Defense of Marriage Act is one recent example.) The Justice Department declined to comment on the case.

Unfortunately, in the case, the three-judge panel also took into consideration that perhaps the biggest opponents of the case are the Samoans themselves - at least, the Samoan leadership.

“Despite American Samoa’s lengthy relationship with the United States, the American Samoan people have not formed a collective consensus in favor of United States citizenship,” the decision says.

Although American Samoans cannot vote for president, they can vote for their local government officials, who pass local laws and have control over immigration and land ownership in the islands. Here is the crux of the island government's argument, they believe that if full citizenship rights were given to their residents, they would lose autonomy over local laws, which includes a law that allows the land to be communally owned by Samoan families. About 90 percent of American Samoa falls under this status. The land cannot be sold or rented to anyone "whose blood is less than one-half Samoan."

American Samoa's own government sided with the U.S. government, which was a critical factor in the judges' decision. The court held that the American Samoa should have a referendum to decide if the majority of its residents want full birthright citizenship.

Weare says that he will appeal the case to the circuit court's full 11-judge panel and if that request is denied, he is prepared to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"American Samoa is the only inhabited US territory whose citizens don't receive birthright citizenship," says Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional law expert from American University's Washington School of Law. "I don't know that the government has a particularly compelling reason other than history and the views and wishes of the American Samoans themselves for why American Samoa should be singled out that way."

###