# data[].attributes.body
Looks at Constitution as it applies to becoming President based on birth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you're a constitutional scholar who loves debating the etymology of terms used in the late 18th century, the past few weeks have been particularly exciting. For years there's been chatter among birthers about whether or not Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president, but when he announced his candidacy earlier this year, the general consensus was that he's probably qualified, and that's goodenough.

But then, as can be said for much of the political landscape in this election cycle, Donald Trump happened. In the first week of January, Trump dusted off his old Obama-birther handbook and went to work on new rival Ted Cruz, transforming his Canadian birth from joke fodder to a legitimate issue - depending on whom you ask. Now the obscure academic debate has moved to mainstream publications, and it may have real implications for Cruz's political future. Here's a guide to the various arguments on whether the Texas senator is the latest victim of birther fearmongering, or a sneaky Canuck trying to seize control of the government.

The Issue
Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, on December 22, 1970, to Eleanor Darragh, who was born in Delaware, and Rafael Cruz, who was born in Cuba. The Cruzes were working for the oil industry at the time, and relocated to Houston, Texas, when Ted was4.

Someone is considered an American citizen if they meet one of three qualifications: They are born on soil, regardless of their parents' citizenship; they are born outside the to at least one American parent; they go through the naturalization process and are granted citizenship.

Cruz is clearly a citizen under the second qualification, so what's the problem? Well, according to Article , Section 1 of theConstitution:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the UnitedStates.

Cruz is 45 years old and has lived in the since he was a child, but since the framers never explained what the term "natural born Citizen" means, his presidential eligibility is up fordebate.

Arguments in Favor of Cruz's Eligibility
Of course, one of the biggest proponents of the "Cruz is eligible" theory is Harvard-educated lawyer and former clerk to Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Ted Cruz. In the last debate heargued:

Under longstanding law, the child of a citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen. If a soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen. That's why John McCain, even though he was born in Panama, was eligible to run for president. If an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural-born citizen. That's why George Romney, Mitt's dad, was eligible to run for president, even though he was born inMexico.

(Cruz went on to paint birthers as so nutty that they'd question the citizenship of Donald Trump, who was born in the U.S., because his mother was born inScotland.)

The "longstanding law" Cruz is likely referring to is the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by the first Congress three years after the Constitution was written. It states that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural borncitizens."

So, case closed? Nope! That's the only time Congress clarified the meaning of "natural born citizen," but as FactCheck.org explains, that law was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, where the term "natural born citizens" was changed to just"citizens."

A 2011 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service noted that switch, and delved deep into the 19th-century understanding of the term "natural born" under English common law. It concluded that anyone who is a citizen at birth can run for president:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a citizen.

Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, two former solicitor generals who served in the Barack Obama and George W. Bush administrations, respectively, backed up that analysis in an often-cited March 2015 op-ed in the Harvard Law Review. They explain that children born outside of the British Empire were still subjects, and were described in British law as "natural born." "The framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like 'natural born,' since the (British) statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War," theysaid.

Katyal and Clement also note that we have a good idea of why the "natural born citizen" requirement was included in the Constitution. Shortly before the document was drafted, John Jay, the future first chief justice of the Supreme Court, suggested in a letter to George Washington that they should provide a "strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [ sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

The framers were concerned about foreign influence on the newly formed government, but as Katyal and Clement point out, "John Jay's own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidentialeligibility."

Bryan A. Garner, law professor and longtime editor-in-chief of Black's Law Dictionary, took a stab at the issue this month in The Atlantic and found that the framers would have understood the British term "natural born subject" to include "the foreign-born child of a subject, as long as the subject-parent was thefather."

Today, Cruz would not be disqualified by that patriarchal stipulation. "Even if it once mattered (until 1934), the sex of the parent-citizen almost certainly isn't a factor under current American law," Garner writes. "The Supreme Court would today hold that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause obliterated any suchdistinction."

Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale University, agreed in a opinion piece that Cruz might not have been eligible if he were born in 1790. But hewrites:

Note that the right question to ask is not: What were the natural-born statutory rules in 1788 or 1790? The right question is: What are the natural-born statutory rules on the day a given presidential candidate was born? These statutory rules have changed over the years, and Article builds these future changes into its elegantlanguage.

And a good thing, too, given that the rules of 1790 were rather sexist. In both England and America, the law in that era typically focused on the status of a foreign-born baby's father, not mother. In other sections of the 1790 law, race tests were in place, treating "white" persons better than allothers.

Arguments Against Cruz's Eligibility
Like many issues surrounding Ted Cruz, the eligibility controversy appears to be partially fueled by the fact that pretty much everyone hates him. One scholar Donald Trump frequently cites when making his Cruz-birtherism argument is Harvard's Laurence Tribe, who was once the senator's professor. He's the scholar Trump mentioned in the last debate, prompting Cruz to dismiss him as "a left-wing judicial activist" and "major Hillary Clintonsupporter."

In a recent Boston Globe op-ed, Tribe said he actually believes Cruz is eligible to be president - but that's because unlike Cruz, he's not an "originalist," or "one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution's terms at the time of their adoption." Tribe argues that the sort of judge Cruz admires - one who refuses "to discard the Second Amendment's 'right to bear arms' as a historical relic, or to limit that right to arms-bearing by members of today's 'state militias,' the national guard" - should stick with the sexist 1790 definition of a "natural born citizen" and find Cruz ineligible for thepresidency.

It appears Tribe's aim wasn't to derail Cruz's campaign, but to needle him for his opposition to "living constitutionalists," like his old professor. Apparently, the dispute between Cruz and Tribe dates back severaldecades:

When Cruz was my constitutional law student at Harvard, he aced the course after making a big point of opposing my views in class - arguing stridently for sticking with the "original meaning" against the idea of a more elastic "living Constitution" whenever such ideas came up. I enjoyed jousting with him, but Ted never convinced me - nor did I convincehim.

At least he was consistent in those days. Now, he seems to be a fair-weather originalist, abandoning that method's narrow constraints when it suits hisambition.

Other scholars aren't arguing against Cruz simply because they find him irritating and his position ironic. Earlier this month, Mary Brigid McManamon, a constitutional law professor at Widener University's Delaware Law School, said Cruz is ineligible, writing in the Washington Post:

The concept of "natural born" comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept's definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England," while aliens are "such as are born out of it." The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one's country ofbirth.

McManamon, an originalist, takes issue with Katyal and Clement's Havard Law Review op-ed, saying the laws they cite are new statutes passed by Parliament rather than longstanding English common law. "While it is understandable for a layperson to make such a mistake, it is unforgivable for two lawyers of such experience to equate the common law with statutory law," she writes. "The common law was unequivocal: Natural-born subjects had to be born in English territory. The then-new statutes were a revolutionary departure from thatlaw."

Writing in Salon this week, Harvard Law professor Einer Elhauge agreed with McManamon that what the framers had in mind was the English common law meaning of "natural born": someone born within a territory. He also argues that even if there are other methods by which one can become a citizen at birth, the word "natural" is "a limiting qualifier that indicates only some persons who are born citizens qualify" for thepresidency.

Furthermore, Elhauge says that if we're willing to accept that a naturalized citizen (say, Arnold Schwarzenegger) is ineligible for the presidency, the idea that an American born abroad can't be president either isreasonable:

The concern at the time was obviously that foreign-born persons might not be as loyal to the One might think that concerns about disloyalty are odd for persons who have lived in the as citizens for a long time, but that oddity was also true at the founding. Moreover, no one claims the clause means that naturalized citizens (who may have lived in the since they were small children) are eligible to run for president, even though they had to do far more to prove their loyalty to the than someone born abroad who happened to have one citizenparent.

The line between those born in the versus abroad to parents certainly seems debatable. But it is no less sensible than the alternative line between those born abroad to parents versus those have been naturalized citizens for decades. This is one of those issues where general principles (even living ones) do not dictate any particular dividing line, and we need some technical fixed rule. Unfortunately for Ted Cruz, that technical rule does not permit hiscandidacy.

The Bottom Line: We Don't Really Know If Cruz Is Eligible to Be President
Yes, this may be one of those instances where Donald Trump is right. While more legal scholars seem to think the court would find Cruz eligible, we can't say for sure because the Supreme Court hasn't taken up the issue. As PolitiFact notes, lawsuits filed in 2008 contesting John McCain's eligibility didn't go anywhere. "We know from the McCain lawsuits, courts don't want to touch this," said Sarah Duggin, a Catholic University law professor who has studied the issue extensively. "It very well may be that the courts would refuse to go near this. There are so manyissues."

In McCain's case the matter was settled when the Senate passed a measure stating that while he was born in Panama, "John Sidney McCain, , is a 'natural born Citizen' under Article , Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." The Senate is far less likely to do the same for Cruz because his claim is murkier than McCain's - and as with everything Cruz does, there's the usual interpersonalissue.

Houston attorney Newton B. Schwartz Sr. is still hoping the Supreme Court will address the issue, so he filed a lawsuit last week in District Court challenging Cruz's "natural born" citizenship. Duggin believes private citizens don't have standing to sue, but the court could be forced to take up the issue if Cruz is challenged by another presidential candidate, or excluded from a primary ballot due to his Canadianbirth.

Regardless of the legal outcome, Trump has achieved his goal. Remember, he isn't saying he knows Cruz is ineligible, he's just helpfully pointing out that you don't want a huge legal controversy hanging over your party's presidential nominee. A Monmouth University poll released this week shows that a sizable number of Republican voters are at least confused about whether Cruz is eligible to be president (and presumably most haven't even delved into the definitions of early American legal terms). Two-thirds think Cruz is eligible to run, while 12 percent say he isn't and 24 percent aren'tsure.

On the other hand, Cruz has reason to hope that he'll survive this controversy over his citizenship. President Obama is about to end his second term, and two years ago a poll found 19 percent of Americans still thought he was definitely or probably not a citizen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Ted Cruz Eligible to Run for President? Here Are the Theories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you're a constitutional scholar who loves debating the etymology of terms used in the late 18th century, the past few weeks have been particularly exciting. For years there's been chatter among birthers about whether or not Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president, but when he announced his candidacy earlier this year, the general consensus was that he's probably qualified, and that's goodenough.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is DACA? And Where Does It Stand Now?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here’s what you need to know about a program that protected from deportation people brought into the United States as children.

# data[].attributes.body
Americans don't know much about Puerto Rico

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Inaccurate beliefs on this question matter, because Americans often support cuts to foreign aid when asked to evaluate spending priorities. In our poll, support for additional aid was strongly associated with knowledge of the citizenship status of Puerto Ricans. More than 8 in 10 Americans who know Puerto Ricans are citizens support aid, compared with only 4 in 10 of those who do not.

Being informed about the citizenship status of Puerto Ricans also modestly increases support for aid. Over all, 64 percent of Americans in the poll who were given no additional information said that Puerto Rico should receive additional government aid to help rebuild the territory, while 14 percent said it was not necessary and 20 percent said they did not know or had no opinion.

Know Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens

Know Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens

But when a random sample of participants was informed that Puerto Ricans were U.S. citizens before answering this question, support for aid increased four percentage points, to 68 percent. These effects were especially large for Republicans (+9 percentage points), Trump voters (+10 percentage points) and Hispanic respondents (+12 percentage points). For example, 67 percent of Trump voters who saw a prompt informing them that Puerto Ricans were U.S. citizens supported additional aid, compared with 57 percent who did not see the prompt.

These findings are consistent with research showing that people tend to allocate contributions in laboratory games toward fellow members of their group. They also underline the pivotal role the news media can play in shaping public sympathies. Previous research has found that competing stories can crowd foreign disasters out of the news, reducing aid provided by the United States.

In this case, the lack of media attention could lead people to ignore Puerto Rico's plight. Our sympathies for other people depends in part on whether we see them as fellow members of our tribe. Without more coverage, it may be easy to forget that the people suffering are our fellow Americans.
Morning Consult data was collected from Sept. 22-24, 2017, among a national sample of 2,200 adults. The interviews were conducted online, and the data was weighted to approximate a target sample of adults based on age, race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment and region.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nearly Half of Americans Don't Know Puerto Ricans Are Fellow Citizens

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Inaccurate beliefs on this question matter, because Americans often support cuts to foreign aid when asked to evaluate spending priorities. In our poll, support for additional aid was strongly associated with knowledge of the citizenship status of Puerto Ricans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As President Donald Trump visits Puerto Rico on Tuesday, here are a few answers to questions about the Caribbean island that was recently devastated by Hurricane Maria.

Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens: Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony until the U.S. took control of the island after the Spanish-American War of 1898. In 1917, the U.S. granted citizenship to Puerto Ricans through the Jones-Shafroth Act. Puerto Ricans have U.S. passports.

Can Puerto Ricans travel freely and move freely to and from the U.S.? As U.S. citizens from a U.S. territory, Puerto Ricans can freely travel and move between the island and any of the 50 states of the union.

Americans don't need a passport to go to Puerto Rico and the island does not have a separate currency.

If Puerto Puerto is not a state, what is it? Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, or territory of the United States. Its local government consists of a governor elected every four years and a Senate and House of Representatives, but this local government only legislates over certain internal affairs.

RELATED: Puerto Ricans hope Trump gets an eyeful of the devastation

As a territory, the U.S. federal government controls all of Puerto Rico's commerce, trade, immigration and naturalization, military affairs, mail, highways, natural resources, Social Security and federal taxation and maritime law. Puerto Ricans have been and are an integral part of the U.S. military forces.

Can Puerto Ricans vote for U.S. president, Congress? Not if they live in the island. Since it's not a state, Puerto Ricans in the island don't vote in U.S. presidential elections and don't vote in U.S. congressional elections, though they do vote for presidential primaries.

Puerto Ricans in the island do vote for a resident commissioner who represents the island's interests in Washington, D.C., but is not a voting member of Congress.

However, Puerto Ricans who reside in the mainland U.S. vote do vote in U.S. elections. So that's the difference - Puerto Ricans who live on the island participate in local elections, and those who live in the U.S. vote in U.S. elections.

Follow NBC Latino on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
So what is Puerto Rico's relationship to the U.S.? Here's four things to know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As President Donald Trump visits Puerto Rico on Tuesday, here are a few answers to questions about the Caribbean island that was recently devastated by Hurricane Maria. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens: Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony until the U.S. took control of the island after the Spanish-American War of 1898.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out how to become a U.S. citizen through naturalization. See how to prove U.S. citizenship, get dual citizenship, or renounce or lose your citizenship.

# data[].attributes.body
Use this information to help create your bibliography.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Purdue OWL: Chicago Manual of Style 17th Edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This section contains information on The Chicago Manual of Style method of document formatting and citation. These resources follow the seventeenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style, which was issued in 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national conference of state legislatures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out the latest state legislative activity in regards to medical marijuana.

# data[].attributes.body
This website includes topics with pro and con views on numerous topics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ProCon.org - Pros and Cons of 100+ Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore both sides of debated issues. Presented in a non-partisan format with supporting background information, statistics, and resources.

# data[].attributes.body
Four ways to become a citizen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Generally speaking, a person can become a U.S. citizen in one of four ways. First, by being born in the United States or one of its territories. Second, if you were born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship. Third, you can be a citizen through the naturalization process, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test. Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. This is called "derivation" of citizenship.

It may come as a shock, but many people in the United States have already obtained their American citizenship without realizing it. These people sometimes can normally be grouped into three categories.

First, there are people that are born in the United States, but have lived most of their lives outside of the U.S. Some of these people mistakenly believe that they may lose their citizenship and naturalization by living outside of the country for an extended period of time, but this is not true.

Next, there are some who believe they are not citizens even though they have ancestors that were citizens of the United States. It may be that, even though an individual was born outside of the U.S., that person is a citizen if their parents or grandparents were U.S. citizens.

Lastly, some minor children of naturalized U.S. citizens may mistakenly believe that they may not be U.S. citizens. However, when parents become naturalized citizens, their kids with green cards will also acquire American citizenship. This is true because children under the age of 18 cannot usually apply to become citizens through the naturalization process.
Citizenship by Being Born in the United States
In most situations, any child that is born in the United States or one of its territories will automatically receive American citizenship. However, children born to diplomats and other recognized government officials from foreign countries will not receive U.S. citizenship if born on American soil. You can learn more about this by looking through Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

If you were born in the U.S., your U.S. citizenship will last your entire life unless you make an affirmative action to give it up, like filing an oath.
Citizenship by Being Born to U.S. Citizens
In a number of situations, if you were born to parents, at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, you automatically gained U.S. citizenship through the process of acquisition. It does not matter whether you were born on American soil or foreign. As well, if you have children, those children will also acquire U.S. citizenship through you at their birth. Additionally, foreign-born adoptees to U.S. citizens also may claim U.S. citizenship.

The laws regarding citizenship obtained through acquisition are some of the most complex of all of U.S. citizenship laws and take into account things like the citizenship of parents, as well as if the child was born in or outside of wedlock. This complexity has not lessened at all because Congress has made major changes to these laws throughout history. In order to determine which laws will apply to you or your child, you must first see which date range applies:

Born prior to May 24, 1934

Born between May 25, 1934 and January 12, 1941

Born between January 13, 1941 and December 23, 1952

Born between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, and

Born after November 14, 1986.

Derivation of Citizenship and Naturalization of Parents
A child may become a U.S. citizen through the process of derivation if one of his parents becomes a U.S. citizen via naturalization. However, at the time the parent becomes naturalized, the child must have a green card, be under the age of 18, and living with the naturalized parent in order to take advantage of these laws. In addition, a child who becomes an American resident through this special process does not have to go through the process of applying for and passing a naturalization test.

Like the laws that apply to children acquiring citizenship by being born to American residents, the laws relating to derivation have change much in the past. In order to figure out which set of laws apply to you, you need to look at the date of naturalization of your parent(s). These dates are:

Before May 24, 1934

Between May 24, 1934 and January 12, 1941

Between January 13, 1941 and December 23, 1952

Between December 24, 1952 and October 4, 1978

Between October 5, 1978 and February 26, 2001, or

After February 27, 2001

Carry Proof of Your Citizenship
If you believe that you are a citizen of the U.S., you should acquire proof of your citizenship (such as a passport) to ensure that receive all the benefits of citizenship.
Immigration Issues Concerning You? Contact an Attorney
It's important to be up-to-date on the law, particularly if you're an immigrant or are hoping to gain citizenship through your parents. For help understanding immigration laws, you can contact an immigration attorney who can answer any questions you may have about citizenship and help you file any necessary forms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Citizenship Through Parents or by Birth - FindLaw

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Generally speaking, a person can become a U.S. citizen in one of four ways. First, by being born in the United States or one of its territories. Second, if you were born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called "acquisition" of citizenship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you live in a state that legalized medical or recreational marijuana use, it may come as an unpleasant surprise to learn that you are still committing a federal crime by possessing, buying, or selling marijuana. The problem is, despite the liberalization of state laws across the country, federal law still treats marijuana as a controlled substance, just like cocaine or heroin.

This conflict between state and federal law creates a situation where you can be charged with a federal crime for activities that are allowed by your home state. And your state laws won't be a defense in federal court. There are also several ways that federal marijuana laws can affect everyday life decisions, from where you bank to where you live.
Understanding Federal Marijuana Laws
Since the 1930s, federal law has declared the use, sale or distribution of marijuana illegal. Current federal drug laws are contained in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The CSA classifies and regulates illegal drugs, and places listed drugs on a schedule according to their medicinal value and potential for abuse.

Under the CSA, marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. This designation is reserved for drugs that have a high potential for abuse, lack any medical value and can't be safely prescribed. Anyone growing, marketing or distributing marijuana is likely violating multiple federal laws.

You can run into problems with the CSA even if you are not directly involved with the marijuana industry. If you provide services to a business that operates under state marijuana laws, you may also be violating federal law, and subject to prosecution. So if you run a janitorial services and have a client that operates a dispensary, you may be profiting from illegal drug trafficking.

The CSA also makes it unlawful to "knowingly open, lease, rent, maintain, or use property for the manufacturing, storing, or distribution of controlled substances." So landlords that have tenants involved in state-permitted marijuana industry may risk federal asset forfeiture or other criminal fines.

Penalties for violating the CSA are not just targeting growers and distributors. Simple possession with no intent to distribute is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison and a minimum fine of $1,000. Individuals involved in marijuana businesses can receive up to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000 for individuals and $1 million.

There is currently a ceasefire in the federal war on medical marijuana. Since 2014, Congress has approved a budget amendment that prohibits the Department of Justice to use funds to prevent state from implementing their medical marijuana laws. Known as the Rohrabacher-Farr or CJS amendment, this piece of legislation must be acted on each year to keep it in place so its future is uncertain.
Federal Law and State Ballot Initiatives
State ballot measures to legalize marijuana have no impact of federal law or the CSA. In 2005, Congress' constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to ban local marijuana production and consumption was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. This is the reason that no state law will affecting the federal classification of Marijuana as a Class I controlled substance
Everyday Conflicts Affecting
The ongoing conflict with federal law can make it for problems in your day-to-day life. The following are common issues you should be aware of:
Employment
You can be fired from your job for your off-the-clock use of marijuana. So says the Supreme Court in Coats v. Dish Network(2015),a Colorado case where an employee sued for wrongful termination after testing positive for marijuana. State unfair employment practice laws generally find it unlawful to prohibit legal activities as a condition of employment. In many states the use of marijuana is legal. But under federal law, the use of marijuana is illegal so it can be prohibited by an employer.

Labor laws are not only determined by your home state. The Fair Labor Standards Act, and other federal laws and agency regulations also set workplace rules. For example, the federal government sets a national minimum wage, maintains child labor laws, and rule prohibiting forms of discrimination. Employers must maintain an environment that is consistent with both these state and federal rules.

These conflicting laws also create problems in some professions. Doctors cannot legally prescribe marijuana since it is a Schedule I drug under the CSA. A few doctors have lost their license or been reprimanded by state medical boards, but stricter enforcement is still possible. Lawyers also risk their licenses when advising clients involved in the marijuana industry, since they are providing advice on how to violate federal law.

Renters can face eviction even when their marijuana uses is compliant with their state's law if their lease prohibits illicit drugs. Since federal law states marijuana is a controlled substance, it can be prohibited by your landlord. If you are a section 8 or other federal housing aid recipient, you are not allowed to use marijuana. Violations can lead to a loss of benefits or eviction.

If you work in the marijuana industry, you are likely familiar with Internal Revenue Code Section 280E. This law prohibits marijuana businesses from deducting ordinary business expenses such as marketing, training, transportation. What it creates is a federal tax rate of 60 to 90 percent. These businesses can deduct cost of goods sold, so shrewd accounting incorporates many of their expenses into the cost of goods.
Right to Bear Arms
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that if you have a medical marijuana card you can be prevented from buying a gun. The court held this ban on gun ownership did not violate the Second Amendment since federal law prohibits gun purchases by an "unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance." In 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms clarified in a letter that the law applies to marijuana users regardless of their home state's laws.

Many banks and credit card companies are reluctant to provide accounts to participants in the marijuana industry for fear of prosecution under the CSA. The U.S. Department of Treasury has issued guidelines on how financial companies can services the industry without violating federal money laundering laws.
Have Your Marijuana Case Reviewed for Free
Being charged with a federal drug crime is serious business, and punishment for people found guilty is frequently very severe. Further complicating matters, federal courts don't recognize medical marijuana as a defense to possession or cultivation. If you're being investigated for a marijuana-related offense, it is important to understand your legal options. A local criminal defense attorney is available for a free review of your case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you live in a state that legalized medical or recreational marijuana use, it may come as an unpleasant surprise to learn that you are still committing a federal crime by possessing, buying, or selling marijuana. The problem is, despite the liberalization of state laws across the country, federal law still treats marijuana as a controlled substance, just like cocaine or heroin.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teach and Learn With The Times: Resources for Bringing the World Into Your Classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While the Constitution protects the rights of students at school, many school officials are unaware of students' legal protections, or simply ignore them.

When heading back to school this year, make sure to know your rights and ensure that your school treats every student fairly and equally. The ACLU has a long tradition of fighting to protect students' rights, and is always ready to speak with you on a confidential basis. If you believe that your rights have been violated, don't hesitate to contact your local ACLU affiliate.

Here are six things you need to know about your rights at school:

1. Speech rights

In the landmark Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the ACLU successfully challenged a school district's decision to suspend three students for wearing armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The court declared that students and teachers do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

The First Amendment ensures that students cannot be punished for exercising free speech rights, even if school administrators don't approve of what they are saying. Unfortunately, where legal protections are weak, schools are threatening student's speech - and their privacy - by requiring them to reveal the contents of their social media accounts, cell phones, laptops, and other personal technologies. The ACLU is fighting for new state laws around the country that would provide stronger student privacy protections.

Over the years, the ACLU has successfully defended the right of students to wear an anti-abortion armband, a pro-LGBT t-shirt, and shirts critical of political figures. The ACLU has even defended the rights of high school students who wanted to protest the ACLU.

Contact the ACLU if you believe your school is trying to limit your First Amendment rights.

2. Dress codes

While schools are allowed to establish dress codes, students have a right to express themselves.

Dress codes are all too often used to target and shame girls, force students to conform to gender stereotypes and punish students who wear political and countercultural messages. Such policies can be used as cover for racial discrimination, by targeting students of color over supposed "gang" symbols or punishing students for wearing natural hairstyles and hair extensions. Dress codes can also infringe on a student's religious rights by barring rosaries, headscarves and other religious symbols.

Schools must make the case that a certain kind of dress is disruptive to school activities. They cannot use dress codes to punish girls, people of color, transgender and gender non-conforming students and free speech.

If you are told to comply with a dress code that you believe is discriminatory, contact the ACLU. Complying with the dress code will not prevent you from challenging it at a later date.

3. Immigrant rights

Schools cannot discriminate against students on the basis of race, color, national origin. Undocumented children cannot be denied their right to a free public education, but some schools continue to create exclusionary policies. Last year, the ACLU sued several school districts for requiring families to prove their immigration status in order to enroll their children in school.

Students with limited English proficiency cannot be turned away by schools, which must provide them with language instruction.

Contact the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project if you have observed or experienced discrimination based on immigration status or national origin in school.

4. Disability rights

Public schools are prohibited by federal law from discriminating against people with disabilities, and cannot deny them equal access to academic courses, field trips, extracurricular activities, school technology, and health services.

Sometimes, educators and administrators discriminate by refusing to make necessary medical accommodations, restricting access to educational activities and opportunities, ignoring harassment and bullying, and failing to train staff on compliance with state and federal laws.

Schools have a duty to defend students with disabilities from bullying and biased treatment, and the ACLU is working to ensure that the rights of these students are protected.

5. LGBT rights

Bullying of LGBT students can be pervasive at schools, and is all too often ignored or encouraged by the schools themselves. LGBT students have a right to be who they are and express themselves at school. Students have a right to be out of the closet at school, and schools cannot skirt their responsibility to create a safe learning environment and address incidents of harassment.

Public schools are not allowed to threaten to "out" students to their families, overlook bullying, force students to wear clothing inconsistent with their gender identity or bar LGBT-themed clubs or attire. Transgender and gender non-conforming students often face hostile environments in which school officials refuse to refer to students by their preferred gender pronouns or provide access to appropriate bathroom and locker room facilities.

If you find that your school is undermining your rights, contact your local ACLU affiliate or the ACLU LGBT Project. Be sure to report incidents of bullying or bias to a school principal or counselor and remember to keep detailed notes of your interactions with officials and make copies of any paperwork that the school asks you to fill out.

6. Pregnancy discrimination

Since Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education, was passed in 1972, schools have been prohibited from excluding pregnant students and students with children. Yet schools often push such students to drop out by making it impossible to complete classwork, preventing them from participating in extracurricular activities, refusing to accommodate schedule adjustments, punishing them with unwarranted disciplinary actions, and pressuring them to transfer or quit school altogether.

Denying these students an education, access to school activities and reasonable accommodations violates their rights. Public schools must ensure that pregnant students have access to the same accommodations that students with temporary medical conditions are given, including the ability to make up missed classwork and learn in a safe, nonjudgmental environment. Schools are also not allowed to punish students who choose to terminate a pregnancy or reveal a student's private medical information.

If you believe that your school is treating you unfairly for being pregnant, ending a pregnancy, or having a child, contact the ACLU's Women's Rights Project.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student Rights at School: Six Things You Need To Know | ACLU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While the Constitution protects the rights of students at school, many school officials are unaware of students' legal protections, or simply ignore them. When heading back to school this year, make sure to know your rights and ensure that your school treats every student fairly and equally.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to the Student Rights section of FindLaw's Education Law Center. As the U.S. Supreme Court once declared, students do not shed their constitutional

# data[].attributes.body
Rebel Wilson wins case.

# data[].attributes.body
Disney vs. Beef Industry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disney disclosed it paid $177 million to settle the "pink slime" defamation case involving the ABC network which it owns. NPR's Scott Simon talks to University of Michigan law professor Lenn Niehoff.

SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

News on the pink slime front this week. ABC reported in 2012 on a processed beef product used as filler in a product sold by a South Dakota meat producer. Beef Products sued ABC for defamation and calls their product, quote, "lean finely textured beef" - more appetizing than pink slime. ABC News has not retracted or apologized for its investigative story. But it was reported this week that Disney, which owns ABC, settled the suit out of court for what we now know is an historically large number. Footnote in Disney's latest earnings report says the corporation paid $177 million for costs, quote, "incurred in connection with the litigation." The settlement itself is even larger but confidential. Lenn Niehoff is a professor of law at the University of Michigan. He joins us from Ann Arbor. Thanks so much for being with us.

LENN NIEHOFF: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

SIMON: Why would Disney pay what must be hundreds of millions of dollars to a South Dakota meat producer if their report was right?

NIEHOFF: Well, settlements are often reached even where the defendant believes that they didn't do anything wrong. It's a safer course and a more prudent course to resolve the case than it is to litigate. And in this particular case, ABC would have had good reasons to think that there were risks entailed in going forward with the trial.

SIMON: Like what, as you see it?

NIEHOFF: Well, there are a few things. First of all, ABC did try to get the case dismissed in the early going and the judge declined to do that. They tried to remove the case to federal court, which is a pretty well accepted strategy. But they couldn't remove it to federal court. So they were going to end up trying the case, really, in the plaintiff's backyard. So I think that those were risks combined with the fact that there's obviously a great deal of sort of free floating anti-media sentiment out there these days, which is hard to quantify. And the amount that was being requested by the plaintiff was, you know, billions, literally, billions of dollars.

SIMON: Does a large settlement like this just embolden other people to sue media companies?

NIEHOFF: Well, I think that after we see a large verdict or a large settlement, we do tend to see an uptick. Many plaintiffs and their lawyers think that maybe media entities are easy get-rich-quick targets. I think that's a mistake.

SIMON: Because they'll settle.

NIEHOFF: Because they'll settle. And I think that, in fact, most media entities are very hesitant to settle most cases. And the case law is very strong, which results in the dismissal of lots of these cases in the early going.

SIMON: Any idea, Professor, what this might mean for the future of Disney or any media outlet that wants to do investigative reporting?

NIEHOFF: Well, I think that, you know, these cases tend to be very fact specific. We're always - it always raises legitimate concerns when we see a large settlement or a large verdict because one of the things we worry about with the media - that in the news room, they will make decisions about how aggressively to report or whether to report on a story at all based on concerns about a large economic consequence down the road. So I think that that, you know, we don't yet know whether this is just a blip on the screen or whether liberty died a little bit this month. But the general pattern is that the courts tend to continue to endorse very strong protections, and media entities continue to be hesitant to resolve these cases.

SIMON: Lenn Niehoff is a professor of law, University of Michigan. Thanks so much for being with us.

NIEHOFF: Thank you for having me.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Disney Settles Defamation Case With Beef Products Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disney disclosed it paid $177 million to settle the "pink slime" defamation case involving the ABC network which it owns. NPR's Scott Simon talks to University of Michigan law professor Lenn Niehoff. SCOTT SIMON, HOST: News on the pink slime front this week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated medical and recreational-purpose marijuana laws by state

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The right to privacy refers to the concept that one's personal information is protected from public scrutiny. U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis called it "the right to be left alone." While not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, some amendments provide some protections.

The right to privacy most often is protected by statutory law. For example, the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protects a person's health information, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces the right to privacy in various privacy policies and privacy statements.

The right to privacy often must be balanced against the state's compelling interests, including the promotion of public safety and improving the quality of life. Seat-belt laws and motorcycle helmet requirements are examples of such laws. And while many Americans are quite aware that the government collects personal information, most say that government surveillance is acceptable.

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs

The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers

The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches

The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information

The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

The court ruled in 1969 that the right to privacy protected a person's right to possess and view pornography in his own home. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Stanley v. Georgia that, " If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."

The controversial case Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.

In 2003, the court, in Lawrence v. Texas, overturned an earlier ruling and found that Texas had violated the rights of two gay men when it enforced a law prohibiting sodomy. [ Countdown: 10 Milestones in Gay Rights History]

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

A person has the right to determine what sort of information about them is collected and how that information is used. In the marketplace, the FTC enforces this right through laws intended to prevent deceptive practices and unfair competition.

The Privacy Act of 1974 prevents unauthorized disclosure of personal information held by the federal government. A person has the right to review their own personal information, ask for corrections and be informed of any disclosures.

The Financial Monetization Act of 1999 requires financial institutions to provide customers with a privacy policy that explains what kind of information is being collected and how it is being used. Financial institutions are also required to have safeguards that protect the information they collect from customers.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act protects personal financial information collected by credit reporting agencies. The act puts limits on who can access such information and requires agencies to have simple processes by which consumers can get their information, review it and make corrections.

Internet users can protect their privacy by taking actions that prevent the collection of information. Most people who use the Internet are familiar with tracking cookies. These small stores of data keep a log of your online activities and reports back to the tracker host. The information is usually for marketing purposes. To many Internet users, this is an invasion of privacy. But there are several ways to avoid tracking cookies.

Browsers and social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, allow users to choose levels of privacy settings, from share everything to only share with friends to share only the minimum, such as your name, gender and profile picture. Protecting personally identifiable information is important for preventing identity theft.

The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) enforces a parent's right to control what information websites collect about their children. Websites that target children younger than 13 or knowingly collect information from children must post privacy policies, get parental consent before collecting information from children, allow parents to decide how such information is used and provide an opt-out option for future collection of a child's information.

Just as a person has the right to keep personal information private, he or she also has the right to control the use of his or her identity for commercial promotion. Unauthorized use of one's name or likeness is recognized as an invasion of privacy.

There are four types of invasion of privacy: intrusion, appropriation of name or likeness, unreasonable publicity and false light. If a company uses a person's photo in an ad claiming that the person endorses a certain product, the person could file a lawsuit claiming misappropriation.

The Supreme Court approaches the right to privacy and personal autonomy on a case-by-case basis. As public opinion changes regarding relationships and activities, and the boundaries of personal privacy change, largely due to social media and an atmosphere of "sharing," the definition of the right to privacy is ever-changing.

Related:

Further reading:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The right to privacy refers to the concept that one's personal information is protected from public scrutiny. U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis called it "the right to be left alone." While not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, some amendments provide some protections. The right to privacy most often is protected by statutory law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The death penalty is the state-sanctioned punishment of executing an individual for a specific crime. Congress, as well as any state legislature, may prescribe the death penalty, also known as capital punishment, for crimes considered capital offenses. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but the Eighth Amendment does shape certain procedural aspects regarding when a jury may use the death penalty and how it must be carried out. Because of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment applies to the states, as well as the federal government.

Eighth Amendment analysis requires that courts consider the evolving standards of decency to determine if a particular punishment constitutes a cruel or unusual punishment. When considering evolving standards of decency, courts look for objective factors to show a change in community standards and make independent evaluations about whether the statute in question is reasonable.

History of the Death Penalty

Initial Ban

In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), the Court invalidated existing death penalty laws because they constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the laws resulted in a disproportionate application of the death penalty, specifically discriminating against impoverished and minority communities. The Court also reasoned that the existing laws terminated life in exchange for marginal contributions to society.

Reinstatement

In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the Court refused to expand Furman. The Court held the death penalty was not per se unconstitutional as it could serve the social purposes of retribution and deterrence. Specifically, the Court upheld Georgia's new capital sentencing procedures, reasoning that the Georgia rules reduced the problem of arbitrary application as seen in earlier statutes.

Proportionality Requirement

In Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a penalty must be proportional to the crime; otherwise, the punishment violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

In performing its proportionality analysis, the Supreme Court looks to the following three factors:

A consideration of the offense's gravity and the stringency of the penalty;

A consideration of how the jurisdiction punishes its other criminals;

And a consideration of how other jurisdictions punish the same crime.

Twenty-one years later, in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008), the Supreme Court extended its ruling in , holding that the penalty is categorically unavailable for cases of child rape in which the victim lives. Because only six states in the country permitted execution as a penalty for child rape, the Supreme Court found that national consensus rendered the death penalty disproportionate in these cases.

Principle of Individualized Sentencing

To impose a death sentence, the jury must be guided by the particular circumstances of the criminal, and the court must have conducted an individualized sentencing process. In Ring v. Arizon a, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional for "a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty."

The Supreme Court further refined the requirement of "a finding of aggravating factors" in Brown v. Sanders, 546 U.S. 212 (2006). For cases in which an appellate court rules a sentencing factor to be invalid, the sentence imposed becomes unconstitutional unless the jury found some other aggravating factor that encompasses the same facts and circumstances as the invalid factor.

The decision in offered yet another clarification to the principle of individualized sentencing jurisprudence. Under Marsh, states may impose the death penalty when the jury finds any aggravating and mitigating factors to be equally weighted, without violating the principle of individualized sentencing.

Method of Execution

A legislature may prescribe the manner of execution, but the manner may not inflict unnecessary or wanton pain upon the criminal.

State courts and lower federal courts have refused to strike down hanging and electrocution as impermissible methods of execution. In Baze v. Rees, 553. U.S 35 (2008), the Supreme Court held that the lethal injection does not constitute a cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court in Baze also applied an "objectively intolerable" test to determine if the method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The legality of lethal injection was upheld in Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. (2015).

Classes of Persons Ineligible for the Death Penalty

In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the Supreme Court decided that executing intellectually/developmentally disabled criminals violates the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" because their cognitive disability lessens the severity of the crime, and therefore renders the extraordinary penalty of death as disproportionately severe. However, in Bobby v. Bies, 556 U.S. 825 (2009), the Court held that states may conduct hearings to reconsider the mental capacity of death row inmates who were labeled developmentally disabled before the Court decided Atkins, because before Atkins, states had little incentive to aggressively investigate disability claims.

In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Supreme Court banned the death penalty for all juvenile offenders. The majority opinion pointed to teenagers' lack of maturity and responsibility, greater vulnerability to negative influences, and incomplete character development. The Court concluded that juvenile offenders assume diminished culpability for their crimes.

In Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. (2014), the Supreme Court held that a brightline IQ threshold may not decide whether someone is intellectually/developmentally disabled for the purpose of being eligible for the death penalty.

For more on the death penalty, see this Florida State University Law Review article, and this Harvard Law Review article.

Federal Material

U.S. Constitution and Federal Statutes

Federal Judicial Decisions

U.S. Supreme Court:

State Material

State Statutes

State Judicial Decisions

N.Y. Court of Appeals:

Key Internet Sources

Cornell Law School Death Penalty Project

Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide

Death Penalty Information Center

Southern Center for Human Rights

See also: Criminal Procedure; Sentencing

[Last updated in September of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The death penalty is the state-sanctioned punishment of executing an individual for a specific crime. Congress, as well as any state legislature, may prescribe the death penalty, also known as capital punishment, for crimes considered capital offenses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some serious criminal offenses are punishable by death, most often violent homicides where it is determined by the jury that the convicted offender lacks remorse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Congress is trying to agree on a bipartisan plan on what to do about DACA, after the Trump administration announced a "wind-down" of the program on Sept. 5, 2017. Lawmakers face a March 5 deadline set by the president to come up with a legislative fix. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate could start debate on immigration before Feb. 8.

How does the DACA program work? We'll go through the facts.
What is DACA?
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program - or DACA - defers deportation proceedings for two years for qualified individuals who were brought to the United States illegally when they were children. The program also gives those who are approved work authorization, and the approvals can be renewed. DACA was created on June 15, 2012, by then-President Barack Obama.
Why did Obama create the program?
In his 2012 announcement, Obama spoke about the failure of Congress to pass the " DREAM Act," which would have provided a path to citizenship for certain immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. He said that in the absence of congressional action, the Department of Homeland Security would institute a temporary program to defer deportation for "eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety."

He called it "a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people."
What are the eligibility requirements for DACA recipients?
Applicants to DACA have to be:

At least 15 years old when applying but under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012

Under the age 16 when entering the United States

Living in the U.S. continuously since June 15, 2007

Present in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, and at the time of applying

In school or have graduated or completed high school, or have been honorably discharged from the military

Not convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor or three or more other misdemeanors

DACA applicants also can't "otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety," according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. They couldn't have lawful status on June 15, 2012, either.

The requirement that applicants be at least 15 years old when applying is waived for those who are in removal proceedings or had received a final removal or voluntary departure order. They can't, however, be in immigration detention.
What's the process for applying?
There's a seven-page application that must be submitted along with documentation proving the applicant meets the eligibility requirements, and there's also a form and a worksheet required for employment authorization. The total fee is $495. If the application is in order, USCIS will give applicants an appointment at a local Application Support Center to provide biometric data, including fingerprints, and USCIS will conduct background checks.
How many DACA recipients currently live in the U.S.?
As of Sept. 4, 2017, there were 689,800 DACA recipients, according to USCIS. The total number of people who have ever been approved for DACA since 2012 is 798,980. Nearly 72,000 initial applications were denied.

About 70,000 of the cumulative approvals either didn't renew or were rejected when trying to renew. About 40,000 became lawful permanent residents.

There are more people who meet the DACA eligibility criteria. The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates that 1.3 million met the criteria and could have applied.

There are several legislative proposals in Congress to provide a path to legal status for those who came to the United States illegally as children that would apply to larger populations (see the last question on legislation for more information).
Does DACA give recipients legal status in the U.S.?
The DACA program doesn't provide a path to citizenship, and even though recipients have deportation deferred, they still do not have lawful status. However, about 40,000 former DACA recipients did go on to get their green cards, becoming lawful permanent residents. How? A spokeswoman for USCIS, Claire K. Nicholson, confirmed to FactCheck.org that the 40,000 people used what's called " advance parole," under which DACA recipients could get permission (after applying and paying a $575 fee) to travel abroad for humanitarian, educational and employment purposes. Once they returned to the U.S., they were entering the country legally. Typically with unlawful status, an immigrant would have to return to his or her home country and apply for a green card there.

Those applying for green cards would have to be eligible under one of several categories, including family - such as marrying a U.S. citizen - and employment.
How old are they?
The average age of DACA recipients was 25 years old last year, according to a national survey of 3,063 DACA holders in August 2017. The vast majority - 82.5 percent - were under 30.

The survey, from Tom K. Wong, an assistant professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, found that when the DACA enrollees arrived in the United States they were 6-and-a-half years old on average, and 54 percent of them were under the age of 7.
Where do they live?
The largest concentrations of those with initial DACA approvals were in California (28 percent) and Texas (16 percent), according to USCIS. About 5 percent of initial DACA approvals came from New York; another 5 percent came from Illinois, and 4 percent came from Florida. But there have been DACA recipients from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Why did President Trump rescind the program, and when does it end?
Republican attorneys general and governors threatened legal action against the executive branch if the Trump administration didn't rescind the 2012 DACA memorandum by Sept. 5, 2017. The Trump administration announced a "wind-down" of the program that day. The memo from the Department of Homeland Security said that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had determined that because DACA was set up through an executive action after Congress rejected legislation on the matter, it was "an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws" and "an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch."

The attorney general also determined that "potentially imminent litigation" against DACA would likely be successful. The Obama administration in November 2014 had expanded DACA eligibility and the period of deferred action to three years, and it created a program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which would defer deportation proceedings for parents with children who were citizens or lawful permanent residents. Those actions were successfully challenged in court by 26 states. A split Supreme Court ruling in June 2016 affirmed an appeals court ruling that halted the 2014 executive action.

The Trump administration didn't end the original 2012 DACA program immediately. Instead, it said that it would no longer accept new DACA applications, and renewals would only be processed for those whose DACA status expires by March 5. At that point, an average of 915 DACA authorizations would be terminated per day, until the final DACA authorizations expired in March 2020, according to estimates by the Migration Policy Institute. The administration also isn't approving any new advance parole requests.

However, on Jan. 9, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco temporarily, and partially, blocked the Trump administration action, ruling that it had to continue processing DACA renewals while a legal challenge proceeds. It doesn't have to accept new applications. USCIS announced it would abide by that ruling. The administration has appealed the District Court decision and said it would request a direct Supreme Court review.
Can the Trump administration deport DACA recipients, and have any been deported?
Under DACA, any deportation action is deferred. However, DACA status can be revoked. USCIS data show that there were 820 terminations in fiscal year 2017 due to convictions or arrests, and another 20 terminations related to gang membership or affiliation. USCIS notes that "deferred action under DACA does not confer legal status upon an individual and may be terminated at any time, with or without a Notice of Intent to Terminate, at DHS's discretion."

One DACA recipient who was deported dropped his court case against the federal government, and another who was stripped of DACA status had that status reinstated. The ACLU has filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing it "has a practice of unlawfully and arbitrarily revoking DACA grants and work authorizations based on unproven allegations or low-level offenses such as traffic violations that do not disqualify the individual from the program."

In an interview with CBS News, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement wouldn't prioritize the removal of DACA recipients. "If you are a DACA that's compliant with your registration, meaning you haven't committed a crime, you, in fact, are registered, you're not [a] priority of enforcement for ICE should the program end," Nielsen said in the Jan. 16 interview.
What are the legislative proposals in Congress regarding DACA?
Several bills have been proposed in Congress to create a path to legal status for DACA recipients and others who were brought to the United States illegally as children. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that under five proposals, there would be between 1.6 million and 3.6 million eligible for conditional legal status, and between 1.3 million and 3.6 million eligible to obtain lawful permanent residence status.

The high-end estimate, however, is for a Democratic bill, while the other proposals are either bipartisan or from Republicans. A bill proposed by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin would enable an estimated 2.14 million to be eligible for conditional legal status and 1.73 million to qualify for lawful permanent residence status, MPI estimates. Those eligible would include those who entered the U.S. at age 17 or younger and who have been continuously present in the U.S. for four years before enactment of the bill.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress is trying to agree on a bipartisan plan on what to do about DACA, after the Trump administration announced a "wind-down" of the program on Sept. 5, 2017. Lawmakers face a March 5 deadline set by the president to come up with a legislative fix.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An overview of firearm/gun laws in Pennsylvania

# data[].attributes.body
Carrying Guidelines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pennsylvania State Police > Firearms Information > Carrying Firearms in Pennsylvania

Who can apply for a Pennsylvania License to Carry?

An individual who is 21 years of age or older may apply for a license to carry firearms by submitting a completed Application for a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms to the sheriff of the county in which they reside or if a resident of a city of the first class, with the chief of police of that city along with the required fee.

Individuals who are 21 years of age or older and are NOT Pennsylvania residents may apply for a license by submitting a completed Application for a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms to any Pennsylvania County Sheriff's office along with the required fee. A Pennsylvania license cannot be issued to a resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by their home state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state, as published annually in the Federal Register by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the Department of the Treasury.

The sheriff has 45 days to conduct an investigation to determine an individual's eligibility to be issued a license. Included in the investigation is a background check conducted on the individual through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) to determine if the records indicate the individual is prohibited by law. In accordance with 18 PA C.S. §6109, a sheriff may deny an individual the right to a License to Carry Firearms if there is reason to believe that the character and reputation of the individual are such that they would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.

If the PICS check is approved and the subject is of good character, the sheriff may issue a License to Carry Firearms. The issuance of a License to Carry Firearms allows individuals to carry a firearm concealed on or about their person, or in a vehicle throughout this Commonwealth. The license is valid for a period of five (5) years unless sooner revoked.

NOTE: A license to carry firearms is NOT a license to purchase. Individuals who purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer are required to have a background check conducted regardless of whether they have a license to carry firearms or not.

Are there exceptions to carrying a firearm without a Pennsylvania License to Carry?

A License to Carry Firearms is issued to carry a firearm concealed on one's person or in a vehicle within this Commonwealth. Any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person except in his place of abode or fixed place of business without a valid and lawfully issued license commits a felony of the third degree.

A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Listed below are exceptions as outlined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106. (2) (b) Exceptions:

1) Constables, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens, or their deputies, policemen of this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions, or other law-enforcement officers.

2) Members of the army, navy, marine corps, air force, or coast guard of the United States or of the National Guard or organized reserves when on duty.

3) The regularly enrolled members of any organization duly organized to purchase or receive such weapons from the United States or from this Commonwealth. 4) Any persons engaged in target shooting with rifle, pistol, or revolver, if such persons are at or are going to or from their places of assembly or target practice and if, while going to or from their places of assembly or target practice, the firearm is not loaded.

5) Officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry a concealed firearm.

6) Agents, messengers and other employees of common carriers, banks, or business firms, whose duties require them to protect moneys, valuables and other property in the discharge of such duties. (Individuals carrying a firearm as an incidence of their employment are required to be certified through the Lethal Weapons Training Act requirements set forth in 22 P.S. § 44(b).

7) Any person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms, or the agent or representative of any such person, having in his possession, using or carrying a firearm in the usual or ordinary course of such business.

8) Any person while carrying a firearm which is not loaded and is in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to his home or place of business, or to a place of repair, sale or appraisal or back to his home or place of business, or in moving from one place of abode or business to another or from his home to a vacation or recreational home or dwelling or back, or to recover stolen property under section 6111.1(b)(4) (relating to Pennsylvania State Police) or to a place of instruction intended to teach the safe handling, use or maintenance of firearms, or back to a location to which the person has been directed to relinquish firearms under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108 (relating to relief) or back upon return of the relinquished firearm or to a licensed dealer's place of business for relinquishment pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108.2 (relating to relinquishment for consignment sale, lawful transfer or safekeeping) or back upon return of the relinquished firearm or to a location for safekeeping pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108.3 (relating to relinquishment to third party for safekeeping) or back upon return of the relinquished firearm.

9) Persons licensed to hunt, take furbearers or fish in this Commonwealth, if such persons are actually hunting, taking furbearers or fishing or are going to the places where they desire to hunt, take furbearers or fish or returning from such places.

10) Persons training dogs, if such persons are actually training dogs during the regular training season.

11) Any person while carrying a firearm in any vehicle, which person possesses a valid and lawfully issued license for that firearm which has been issued under the laws of the United States or any other state.

12) A person who has a lawfully issued license to carry a firearm pursuant to section 6109 (relating to licenses) and that said license expired within six months prior to the date of arrest and that the individual is otherwise eligible for renewal of the license.

13) Any person who is otherwise eligible to possess a firearm under this chapter and who is operating a motor vehicle which is registered in the person's name or the name of a spouse or parent and which contains a firearm for which a valid license has been issued pursuant to section 6109 to the spouse or parent owning the firearm.

14) A person lawfully engaged in the interstate transportation of a firearm as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3) (relating to definitions) in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 926A (relating to interstate transportation of firearms).

15) Any person who possesses a valid and lawfully issued license or permit to carry a firearm which has been issued under the laws of another state, regardless of whether a reciprocity agreement exists between the Commonwealth and the state under section 6109(k), provided: (i) The state provides a reciprocal privilege for individuals licensed to carry firearms under section 6109. (ii) The Attorney General has determined that the firearm laws of the state are similar to the firearm laws of this Commonwealth.

(Note that before an exception would be granted under numbers 9 and 10, the person must obtain a valid Sportsman's Firearm Permit from the county treasurer.)

Who can apply for a Sportsman's Firearm Permit?

An individual who is age 18 or older and is licensed to hunt, trap or fish, or who has been issued a permit relating to hunting dogs, may apply for a Sportsman's Firearm Permit by submitting a completed application along with the required fee to the county treasurer's office. The permit shall be issued immediately and be valid throughout this Commonwealth for a period of five years from the date of issue for any "legal firearm", when carried in conjunction with a valid hunting, furtaking or fishing license, or permit relating to hunting dogs. The issuances of a Sportsman's Firearm Permit allows the individual to carry a firearm if such persons are actually hunting, taking furbearers, fishing or training dogs, or are going to the places where they desire to hunt, take furbearers, fish, or train dogs during the regular training season, or returning from such places. A Sportsman's Firearm Permit is NOT a License to Carry a firearm concealed.

How can I find the most recent information regarding Firearm Reciprocity Agreements?

In 1995, the Pennsylvania General Assembly gave the Attorney General the authority to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states providing for the mutual recognition of each state's license to carry a firearm. The most current information concerning what states have reciprocity agreements with Pennsylvania is posted on the Attorney General's website. To access this information on their web site, select "Crime" and from the drop down box select "Firearm Reciprocity". From here you can view all the states that currently have reciprocity agreements with Pennsylvania along with a copy of the actual reciprocity agreements. All licenses issued by reciprocity states are recognized in Pennsylvania.

Other information included under "Firearm Reciprocity" is a list of states that allow individuals to carry concealed weapons in their state as long as they have a valid concealed weapons permit from their home state, regardless of whether or not there is a reciprocity agreement with that state. These states usually require the individual to have the actual permit and photo ID on their person while carrying the weapon. Note that to lawfully carry a concealed firearm in Pennsylvania, a person must either:

1 - possess a valid Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms,

2 - maintain residency in, and possess a valid license/permit to carry a firearm from a state with which Pennsylvania has a current reciprocity agreement or

3 - fall within the applicable exceptions in 18 Pa. C.S. §6106(2)(b) as listed above, including §6106(2)(b)(15) regarding licenses/permits to carry a firearm recognized under Pennsylvania law without a formal reciprocity agreement.

For a list of the state licenses/permits recognized by the Attorney General under §6106(2)(b)(15), and for more information regarding the carrying of firearms in Pennsylvania, please visit www.attorneygeneral.gov.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pennsylvania State Police > Firearms Information > Carrying Firearms in Pennsylvania Who can apply for a Pennsylvania License to Carry?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding the Organ Transplant Waiting List - Gift of Life Donor Program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Information about the organ transplant waiting list and organ donation program in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

# data[].attributes.body
United Network for Organ Sharing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UNOS | United Network for Organ Sharing | US Organ Transplantation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UNOS is a nonprofit organization with decades of experience in helping save lives through research, technology, innovation and education.

# data[].attributes.body
President tried to limit criticism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
L.F. Tantillo's Return of the Experiment records the arrival of the Experiment in Albany, New York, after its trip to China. It was only the second American ship to journey to Asia.

No protesting the government? No immigrants allowed in? No freedom of the press. Lawmakers jailed? Is this the story of the Soviet Union during the Cold War?

No. It describes the United States in 1798 after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The strong steps that Adams took in response to the French foreign threat also included severe repression of domestic protest. A series of laws known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by the Federalist Congress in 1798 and signed into law by President Adams. These laws included new powers to deport foreigners as well as making it harder for new immigrants to vote. Previously a new immigrant would have to reside in the United States for five years before becoming eligible to vote, but a new law raised this to 14 years.

Charles Willson Peale was one of the great artists of early America. Here, John Adams is captured by Peale's paintbrush.

Clearly, the Federalists saw foreigners as a deep threat to American security. As one Federalist in Congress declared, there was no need to "invite hordes of Wild Irishmen, nor the turbulent and disorderly of all the world, to come here with a basic view to distract our tranquillity." Not coincidentally, non-English ethnic groups had been among the core supporters of the Democratic-Republicans in 1796.

The most controversial of the new laws permitting strong government control over individual actions was the Sedition Act. In essence, this Act prohibited public opposition to the government. Fines and imprisonment could be used against those who "write, print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government.

Under the terms of this law over 20 Democratic-Republican newspaper editors were arrested and some were imprisoned. The most dramatic victim of the law was Representative Matthew Lyon of Vermont. His letter that criticized President Adams' "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice" caused him to be imprisoned. While Federalists sent Lyon to prison for his opinions, his constituents reelected him to Congress even from his jail cell.

A fight in Congress! This image appeared in Harper's New Monthly Magazine nearly a century after the incident between Lyon and Griswold with the poetic caption: "He in a trice struck Griswold thrice / Upon his head enraged, Sir; / Who seized the tongs to ease his wrongs, / And Griswold thus engaged, Sir."

The Sedition Act clearly violated individual protections under the first amendment of the Constitution; however, the practice of "judicial review," whereby the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of laws was not yet well developed. Furthermore, the justices were all strong Federalists. As a result, Madison and Jefferson directed their opposition to the new laws to state legislatures. The Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed resolutions declaring the federal laws invalid within their states. The bold challenge to the federal government offered by this strong states' rights position seemed to point toward imminent armed conflict within the United States.

Enormous changes had occurred in the explosive decade of the 1790s. Federalists in government now viewed the persistence of their party as the equivalent of the survival of the republic. This led them to enact and enforce harsh laws. Madison, who had been the chief architect of a strong central government in the Constitution, now was wary of national authority. He actually helped the Kentucky legislature to reject federal law. By placing states rights above those of the federal government, Kentucky and Virginia had established a precedent that would be used to justify the secession of southern states in the Civil War.

Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798)
These resolutions were passed by the legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and were authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively. The resolutions argued that the federal government had no authority to exercise power not specifically delegated to it in the Constitution.

Report broken link

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Alien and Sedition Acts [ushistory.org]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
L.F. Tantillo's Return of the Experiment records the arrival of the Experiment in Albany, New York, after its trip to China. It was only the second American ship to journey to Asia. No protesting the government? No immigrants allowed in? No freedom of the press. Lawmakers jailed?

# data[].attributes.body
Not all states support stand your ground.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly all states allow some use of deadly force to protect yourself inside your home, based on the "Castle Doctrine." In some areas, many people still have a "duty to retreat" if possible against an attacker outside their home. But some states have expanded their laws to boost those protections in other areas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Although rare, it is possible for a naturalized U.S. citizen to have his or her citizenship stripped through a process called "denaturalization." Former citizens who are denaturalized are subject to removal (deportation) from the United States. Natural-born U.S. citizens may not have their citizenship revoked against their will, but may choose to renounce their citizenship on their own.

This article covers the grounds for having one's citizenship revoked, the basics of the denaturalization process, and defenses to denaturalization.
Grounds for Denaturalization

1. Falsification or Concealment of Relevant Facts: You must be absolutely truthful when filling out paperwork and answering interview questions related to the naturalization application process. Even if the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) fails to recognize any lies or ommissions at first, the agency may file a denaturalization action against you after citizenship has been granted. Examples include failure to disclose criminal activities or lying about one's real name or identity.

2. Refusal to Testify Before Congress: You may not refuse to testify before a U.S. congressional committee whose job it is to investigate your alleged involvement in subversive acts, such as those intended to harm U.S. officials or overthrow the U.S. government. This requirement to testify in order to maintain citizenship status expires after 10 years.

3. Membership in Subversive Groups: Your citizenship may be revoked if the U.S. government can prove that you joined a subversive organization within five years of becoming a naturalized citizen. Membership in such organizations is considered a violation of the oath of U.S. allegiance. Examples include the Nazi Party and Al Qaeda.

4. Dishonorable Military Discharge: Since you may become a naturalized U.S. citizen by virtue of serving in the U.S. military, your citizenship may be revoked if you are dishonorably discharged before serving five years. Reasons for dishonorable discharge, which must follow a general court-martial, include desertion and sexual assault.

The Denaturalization Process

Denaturalization, in which a naturalized citizen is stripped of his or her citizenship, is a process that occurs in federal court (typically in the district court where the defendant last resided) and follows the standard rules of federal civil court cases. As such, it is not an immigration case even though it affects immigration status.

Naturalized citizens found to be in violation of the terms of citizenship must leave the country. Children granted citizenship based on their parent's status may also lose their citizenship after that parent has been denaturalized.

As with any other civil case, the denaturalization process begins with a formal complaint against the defendant, who may respond to the complaint and defend himself or herself at trial (or hire an immigration attorney). The defendant has 60 days to file an answer to the complaint, where he or she may claim the action is based on wrong information or that the statute of limitations has expired, for example.

The U.S. government has a high bar for proving a defendant meets the criteria for denaturalization (a heavier burden of proof than most civil cases, but not as great a burden as criminal cases), according to the USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual:

"Because citizenship is such a precious right, it cannot be taken away unless the government is able to meet a high burden of proof... Accordingly, a case should only be referred for denaturalization where there is objective evidence to establish that the individual was not eligible for naturalization, or procured naturalization by willful concealment or material misrepresentation."

If your U.S. citizenship is revoked, you may be deported soon after the verdict is issued.
Appeals & Defenses
As with other types of court cases, individuals whose citizenship is revoked may appeal the decision if there is reason to believe the lower court made legal errors. Also, those facing denaturalization are not considered to be "concealing" relevant facts if there was no inquiry about them or if there is a lack of evidence pointing to an intentional concealment of relevant facts.

For example, a naturalized citizen belonging to the Communist Party was asked if he belonged to any organization advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government, answering "no." Unless there is sufficient evidence that this person knew the Communist Party engaged in such activities, he did not conceal any relevant facts. However, failure to mention an association with Al Qaeda (or any other terrorist organization) is considered concealment of relevant information.
Questions About Your U.S. Citizenship Being Revoked? Talk to an Attorney
Maybe you're fed up with the U.S. and want to renounce your citizenship. Or maybe you are a naturalized citizen being threatened with deportation because the government claims that you're a member of an "Anti-American" political party. Whatever your situation, it's best to contact a skilled immigration attorney to help you understand U.S. immigration laws and how they apply to your particular situation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can Your U.S. Citizenship Be Revoked? - FindLaw

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although rare, it is possible for a naturalized U.S. citizen to have his or her citizenship stripped through a process called "denaturalization." Former citizens who are denaturalized are subject to removal (deportation) from the United States. Natural-born U.S. citizens may not have their citizenship revoked against their will, but may choose to renounce their citizenship on their own.

# data[].attributes.body
US Citizenship and Immigration Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on the following grounds:

A. Person Procures Naturalization Illegally

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if he or she procured naturalization illegally. Procuring naturalization illegally simply means that the person was not eligible for naturalization in the first place. Accordingly, any eligibility requirement for naturalization that was not met can form the basis for an action to revoke the naturalization of a person. This includes the requirements of residence, physical presence, lawful admission for permanent residence, good moral character, and attachment to the U.S. Constitution.

Discovery that a person failed to comply with any of the requirements for naturalization at the time the person became a U.S. citizen renders his or her naturalization illegally procured. This applies even if the person is innocent of any willful deception or misrepresentation.

B. Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation

1. Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if there is deliberate deceit on the part of the person in misrepresenting or failing to disclose a material fact or facts on his or her naturalization application and subsequent examination.

In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on this basis if:

* The naturalized U.S. citizen misrepresented or concealed some fact;

* The misrepresentation or concealment was willful;

* The misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material; and

* The naturalized U.S. citizen procured citizenship as a result of the misrepresentation or concealment.

This ground of revocation includes omissions as well as affirmative misrepresentations. The misrepresentations can be oral testimony provided during the naturalization interview or can include information contained on the application submitted by the applicant. The courts determine whether the misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material. The test for materiality is whether the misrepresentations or concealment had a tendency to affect the decision. It is not necessary that the information, if disclosed, would have precluded naturalization.

2. Membership or Affiliation with Certain Organizations

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if the person becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of his or her naturalization. In general, a person who is involved with such organizations cannot establish the naturalization requirements of having an attachment to the Constitution and of being well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

The fact that a person becomes involved with such an organization within five years after the date of naturalization is prima facie evidence that he or she concealed or willfully misrepresented material evidence that would have prevented the person's naturalization.

C. Other than Honorable Discharge before Five Years of Honorable Service after Naturalization

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if:

* The person became a U.S. citizen through naturalization on the basis of honorable service in the U.S. armed forces;

* The person subsequently separates from the U.S. armed forces under other than honorable conditions; and

* The other than honorable discharge occurs before the person has served honorably for a period or periods aggregating at least five years.

Footnotes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grounds for Revocation of Naturalization - Chapter 2, Part L, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on the following grounds: A. Person Procures Naturalization Illegally A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if he or she procured naturalization illegally. Procuring naturalization illegally simply means that the person was not eligible for naturalization in the first place.

# data[].attributes.body
US Citizenship and Immigration Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A person may derive or acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. Persons who are born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens at birth. Persons who are born in certain territories of the United States also may be citizens at birth. In general , but subject in some cases to other requirements, including residence requirements as of certain dates, this includes persons born in:

* Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904;

* Commo nwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) on or after November 4, 1986.

Persons born in American Samoa and Swain s Island are generally considered nationals but not citizens of the United States.

In addition, persons who are born outside of the United States may be U.S. citizens at birth if one or both parents were U.S. citizens at their time of birth. Persons who are not U.S. citizens at birth may become U.S. citizens through naturalization. Naturalization is the conferring of U.S. citizenship after birth by any means whatsoever.

In general, an applicant files a naturalization application and then USCIS grants citizenship after adjudicating the application. In some cases, a person may be naturalized by operation of law. This is often referred to as deriving citizenship. In either instance, the foreign citizen or national must fulfill all of the requirements established by Congress. In most cases, a person may not be naturalized unless he or she has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.

Deciding to become a U.S. citizen is one of the most important decisions an immigrant can make. Naturalized U.S. citizens share equally in the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. U.S. citizenship offers immigrants the ability to:

* Expand and expedite their ability to bring family members to the United States .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Becoming a U.S. Citizen - Chapter 2, Part A, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A person may derive or acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. Persons who are born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens at birth. Persons who are born in certain territories of the United States also may be citizens at birth.