Opinion ID: 351061
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: De Facto Deportation

Text: 11 The legal argument for the claim of de facto deportation was summarized in Lopez v. Franklin, 427 F.Supp. 345, 347 (E.D.Mich.1977). The argument is as follows: 12 (a) a child born in the United States is a United States citizen; 13 (b) a United States citizen cannot be deported; 14 (c) the deportation of both alien parents of a citizen child in effect deports the child; 15 (d) the deportation of the parents therefore constitutes an unconstitutional deportation of the child. 16 The Lopez court rejected this reasoning and pointed out that deportation is a term of art and is not synonymous with mere departure from the United States. 17 Recently, this Court in Lee v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 550 F.2d 554 (9th Cir. 1977), held that when alien parents are illegally within the United States, they cannot use the citizenship of their child to prevent their own deportation. The Court commented on the relative ease with which aliens can enter this country as students or visitors and then delay their departure long enough to produce citizen children . . . . 550 F.2d at 556. 18 In Application of Amoury, 307 F.Supp. 213, 216 (S.D.N.Y.1969), the Court, in rejecting a claim of de facto deportation, noted: 19 It is all too true that ofttimes individuals, entirely innocent of wrongful conduct, suffer equally with those who commit the wrongful act which brings penalties in its wake. But this does not mean that a constitutional violation has been visited upon the innocent person. It is not required that the procedural due process due an accused must also be accorded to those who may be affected by the final result of proceedings against the accused. 20 We reject petitioner's contention that her deportation will result in an unconstitutional de facto deportation of her child. 21 AFFIRMED.