Court Opinion

ID: 9463710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:13:52.495653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:14.663005
License: Public Domain

ADAMS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
While I concur in the affirmance of the judgment of the district court, I believe that it is appropriate to register the following comments.
In my view, the present appeal would appear to be controlled by Rogers v. Bellei1 That case concerned a challenge to the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1401 and of its application to an individual born abroad to parents, one of whom was an American citizen. The petitioner in Rogers had neglected to satisfy the requirements relating to the retention of citizenship. In sustaining the statute against his claims, the Supreme Court announced that Congress has rather plenary power with respect to matters concerning the citizenship of foreign-born individuals. In light of such a sweeping declaration, this Court seemingly has little choice but to uphold the ruling of the district judge that Rucker forfeited his citizenship because of his failure to comply with the retention provision.
However, such a disposition may, at least as I see it, be an unfortunate one. For it is difficult to conceive of many harsher sanctions than the loss of an individual’s birthright as a member of the American polity. This is especially so where, as here, such forfeiture stems from factors not wholly attributable to the person who has been stripped of his citizenship.
In this instance, it is evident that Rucker himself was unaware of the retention re*1005quirement, largely because his father neglected, for whatever reason, to inform him of it. Conceivably, such a situation could be a common one, since children in foreign lands may well be, in practical effect, dependent upon their parents if they are to learn of the statutory strictures in time sufficient to protect their citizenship.2
Moreover, the predicament in which Rucker finds himself may become more prevalent in the future. Today, in this era of ever-increasing transnational discourse, United States citizens are residing abroad in greater numbers — for example, as employees of multinational business enterprises or as emissaries — military and civilian— of the American government. It follows that the number of foreign-born children of American parentage promises to rise in the coming decades.
Given the unfortunate results that may obtain upon application of § 1401 in particular contexts, and the spectre of an increase in such cases because of current trends in international affairs, Congress may wish to consider the possibility of drafting a statute more flexible than the current retention provision appears to be. While § 1401 itself constitutes an improvement in the “direction of leniency”3 over its precursors, this does not mean that further advances in dealing with the subject at hand have been foreclosed.
At this juncture, however, because of Rogers and the fact that Congress does have plenary power in the area in question, this Court may not countermand a determination within the province of the legislature. Accordingly, I join in the decision reached by my brethren.

. 401 U.S. 815, 91 S.ct. 1060, 28 L.Ed.2d 499 (1971). See the discussion of Rogers in the opinion of the majority at 1001-1003.

. At this point, it should be noted that the majority seems to suggest that Rucker is something of a transnational entrepreneur. Majority Opinion at 1003. He is depicted as having engaged in a “business with international relationships.” Nevertheless, as I read the record, Rucker appears to be little more than the owner of a local farming operation in Argentina, with minimal international dimensions at best.

. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 826, 91 S.Ct. 1060, 28 L.Ed.2d 499 (1971).