Fitisemanu v. United States - Equal Rights in U.S. Territories and Effects on Local Customs
Mr. John Fitisemanu and other Utah residents born in American Samoa, along with the Southern Utah Pacific Islander Coalition, have been defending their right to U.S. citizenship in court, filing a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. In December, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups sided with the three American Samoans who live in Utah and sued to be recognized as U.S. citizens. The judge ruled the Utah residents are entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
On Friday, the U.S. government filed an appeal arguing that automatic, or birthright citizenship, should be a decision left for Congress.
American Samoa is the only U.S. territory where residents have no birthright claim to U.S. citizenship. Instead, those born in the small chain of islands nearly 2,600 miles southwest of Hawaii are granted limited “U.S. national” status, meaning they cannot vote in U.S. presidential elections, run for office outside American Samoa, or even apply for certain jobs within the U.S. government. The only federal election they can cast a vote in is the race for American Samoa's non-voting U.S. House of Representatives seat. To add insult to injury, their passports include a disclaimer that reads: “The bearer is a United States national and not a United States citizen.”
American Samoa has been a U.S. territory since 1900. Interestingly, those born in all other U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Marianas all retain U.S. citizenship at birth. This was determined by statute in Congress and no such law exists for American Samoa. The territory's population is only about 55,000 yet supporters of automatic citizenship estimate that nearly 150,000-160,000 nationals who live in the states, largely concentrated in California, Hawaii, Washington, Utah, and Alaska would immediately benefit from automatic citizenship.
What’s more interesting? The American Samoa government has joined the lawsuit challenging the judge’s decision. Michael Williams, a Washington, D.C., lawyer representing the American Samoa government in challenging the judge’s decision, has said that some are uncomfortable with a faraway judge making decisions about their relationship with the United States. Others assert that birthright citizenship would influence local customs, such as their unique land ownership system. Most property in American Samoa is owned communally among families. Within villages, there are communal lands where extended families live together and are part of the larger community. Family members select chiefs, or matai, to regulate village life and oversee the land. Samoan law also restricts the sale of most land to anyone with less than 50% Samoan ancestry, similar to the Northern Mariana Islands.
There are also concerns that automatic U.S. citizenship would disrupt cultural and religious practices such as prayer curfews enforced by local leaders in a territory where 100% of residents report being Christian, according to the American Samoa government. Imposing blanket religious curfews to U.S. citizens could pose several constitutional issues and would invites certain scrutiny by any U.S. court.
In 2016, the issue of whether American Samoans have a birthright citizenship claim under the 14th Amendment was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court denied certiorari and effectively preserved the D.C. Circuit’s ruling. However, the Utah district court is not bound by the 2016 D.C. Circuit’s decision, allowing for different outcomes. The circuit split creates the potential to have the Supreme Court weigh in on the decision in the coming term.
Nonetheless, the government contends that federal courts should not decide arguments concerning citizenship and only Congress possesses the power to make citizenship decisions. Government attorneys have written that, “Such a novel holding would be contrary to the decisions of every court of appeals to have considered the question, inconsistent with over a century of historical practice by all three branches of the United States government, and conflict with the strong objection of the local government of American Samoa.” The government of American Samoa also argues that “imposition of citizenship by judicial fiat would fail to recognize American Samoa’s sovereignty and the importance of the fa’a Samoa (the Samoa way of life).” Several contend that an “imposition of citizenship over American Samoa’s objections violates fundamental principles of self-determination.”
While there is a certain pathway to citizenship for American Samoans, it is not easy. The process, unlike many other immigration benefits, involves costly document production and hefty filing fees to the United States government. Obtaining U.S. citizenship also requires American Samoans leave the island-nation and permanently reside in the United States mainland.
Before the ruling, Amata Coleman Radewagen, American Samoa's U.S. House of Representatives delegate, introduced a bill to make the pathway to citizenship for American Samoans much easier. The bill would allow nationals to become citizens without having to leave American Samoa and individuals would no longer have to take a citizenship test. Also under her bill, there would be a hardship waiver for application fees. The bill is pending in the Natural Resources Committee with a likely hearing later this year.