Judge Questions Whether Unborn Child Is U.S. Citizen
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A federal judge issued a stay on Thursday to a pregnant woman scheduled for deportation while attorneys look into whether her unborn fetus might be a U.S. citizen, affiliate station KMBC's Donna Pitman reported.
Myrna Dick (pictured, left) went to renew her papers with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service last month, and she wound up in custody. Officials accused her of lying to border patrol officers in 1998 and said it was grounds for deportation to Mexico.
But Dick, who is married to an American citizen, is pregnant with her husband's child. Judge Scott Wright wants to know if the fetus is a U.S. citizen, and if so, whether it can be deported. The judge asked attorneys for both sides to search for relevant precedents before he would rule.
"Clearly, that isn't an issue either side had contemplated," Dick's attorney said.
[Full Story]
They have a survey on this site that asks "Do you think Myrna Dick's fetus is a U.S. Citizen? So far two thirds of the respondents are willing to grant citizenship to this baby. I wonder how legally this will be addressed. Our laws on the unborn are quite schizophrenic. Killing a baby is fine if you are the mother but it is murder if someone kills the baby without the mothers permission. Abortion supporters would be aghast that a product of conception or a tissue mass could be deemed a citizen. That would imply rights such as the protection of its life and the abortion lobby wouldn't stand for that. Life as well as citizenship starts at conception.
It seems wrong to me that they are deporting this women. If she is married to an American Citizen I don't see how it is a good idea to forcibly break up this family. If she did indeed come across illegally by lying to patrol officer, then there should be some legal punishment for this other than deportation. I just think that breaking up a family is a worse crime then coming across illegally.
Known as 
If his or her father is a US Citizen, the child will be a de jure US Citizen the moment he or she successfully completes egress. I do not see how the child can be declared a de facto citizen before birth, as location of birth is the distinguishing factor in defacto citizenship.
If this judge declares the child, unborn, to be a de jure US citizen, I'm not sure what impact it will actually have, but let us all pray its a wedge into overturning Roe.
I'm sure it will be overturned if a judge declared an unborn child a U.S. citizen. However, it is quite possible that the child will be born before they get around to doing so.
Peace, all.
The local press has been following this story with great sympathy. Mrs Dick claims she was not the person who lied. The feds say they have fingerprint evidence (whatever that means). The family will not be broken up; Brady Dick has said if his wife is deported, he will join her in Mexico.
It would be lovely to grant citizenship to the unborn child, but the 14th Amendment does not: it declares to be citizens those who are "born or naturalized" in the U.S.
Before the child is born, he may have Due Process and Equal Protection rights (these apply to "persons", not "citizens"), but he can't be a citizen until he's born.
OTOH, once he's born, if he's born in the U.S., it doesn't matter whether either or both of his parents are U.S. citizens: he himself still is.
i have a patient who is a citizen, currently pregnant with her 7th child (all children citizens) who is legally married to the father of her babies. He went to the INS in approximately the same scenario as described above, and was deported. Now this mom is on welfare (TANF) instead of being supported by her husband. She will probably have to take all the kids and leave the country to join him - guess what the kids will grow up thinking about the USA (of which they are citizens)?
The 14th Amendment states that "persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the United States." Note that this declares a certain class of persons to be citizens, but does not declare it exclusively; it cannot grammatically be construed from the text that ONLY such persons are citizens (what, if anything, can be construed from the historical record of the origin and adoption of the amendment is something else; but I am too ignorant to address that issue). Furthermore, since the United States antedates the 14th Amendment by 79 years, there must have been a reasonably clear working definition of citizenship, either tacitly or explicitly embodied in federal law (there does not appear to be one in the Constitution itself) long before the amendment. What is the current state of federal law regarding U.S. citizenship? Would it not govern in this case?
The greater good for society is keeping these families together here. If indeed she lied during entry then I think a sanction is in order, perhaps a fine. Punishing the children and breaking up the family isn't going to do our country any good.
Life begins at conception. Citizenship does not.
The child of a US citizen is a citizen no matter where they're born. (They warn the fellows in the service of this-- lots of women want to sleep with a service member because if she becomes pregnant, she is the mother of a citizen, and can use that to get into the US.)
So, if the kid's father is a citizen, so's the father-- and if he's married to the mother, that's double the tie.
Sir/Madam
A friend, expat(F)married to US(M) Citizen 2003 are awaiting process of recidental status, the papers have been shuffled from one side of USA to the other and they are now getting a bit frustrated with the procedure and long awaited results.
However, she is now 4 month pregnant and would like to have her status resolved before giving birth. She would prefer to give birth (her first child)in her native country where her mother and other relatives are present and hospitals are but a stone trow away. Due to her husbands job and recident localities, she are home alone during most of the day/night and if anything unfortunate should happen, transport and hospital/medical facilities are miles away.
In this family's case, what is the procedure to get travel permission and re-entry documents for both mother and child without getting refused re-entry, which apparently has happened in previous cases.
Best regards
John
The US constitution states that you are a US citizen if one of your parents is American citizen, Q.E.D.. I can't see any reason why this should be a difficult decision for the court.
Myrna Dick's husband is a Citizen of the United States of America.
This is definitely not the case of an "anchor baby" (where neither parent is a Citizen).
The husband, the wife, and the child should have the rights of and protection to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the woman has nothing more than immigration problems and no felony convictions for aggravated felonies, then let the family go on in life in America.
An aside. The Judge ruled right and proper. How can the Government of the U. S. put the child of a U. S. Citizen in jeopardy by sending that unborn child into an uncertain birth and future?
May God bless the three of them.
If Scott Peterson can be held responsible for a "murder" of an unborn child then that unborn child is a citizen.