[TAX & LAW] 변호사(KO, USA, IL) 이재욱
LAW OFFICE [ TAX & LAW ] 세금과 법률
I P

ATTORNEY [ licensed to practice in KOREA, U.S.A., ILLINOIS ] LEE, JAE WOOK
∗ [FOR AlienS - ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEGAL SERVICES in Counseling, Application and LITIGATION & TRIAL IN COURTS and TRIBUNALS in KOREA]
INTERNATIONAL DIVORCE, CIVIL, REAL ESTATE, PERSONAL INJURY, DAMAGES, TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, FRAUD, PENAL LAW, CRIMINAL TRIAL, FELONY, GUILTY PLEA, LEASE, RENTAL LAW, IMMIGRATION, INVESTMENT, TAX, INCORPORATION, TRADE, CONTRACT, DISPUTE IN CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT TREATMENT, REFUGEE, REMOVAL, VISA, PERMANENT RESIDENCE, CITIZENSHIP]
For more information for the services Attorney LEE provide for the Aliens who want for legal services in Korea, Please do not hesitate to click the below MENU link for "SERVICES FOR AlienS".

∗ [LANGUAGE Translation] You can use Google Translate application to see in your own language the pages in this website. For your convenience, click the "Google Translate(Select Language)"



상담
FEE
소개
| 민사
토지
금융
| 세무
TAX
조세
| 행정
헌법
노동
| 병역
여권
국적
| 특허
PAT
상표
| 모욕
명예
훼손
| 연예
ART
예술
| 형사
범죄
고소
| 관세
국제
통관
| USA
이민
VISA
| 이혼
상속
가사
| Foreign
Clients
| |
[Category]
성희롱,성폭력,성범죄 (Sex harassment LAWS in Korea, U.S.A.)
  • 일반형사사건 (Criminal law GENERAL in Korea, U.S.A.)
  • 구속,압수수색 영장,실질심사
  • 정식재판청구(약식명령)
  • 형사재판과 판결
  • 유죄확정판결에 대한 재심청구제도
  • 증거와 증거능력, 신빙성, 위법증거배제
  • 성희롱,성폭력,성범죄 (Sex harassment LAWS in Korea, U.S.A.)
  • 근친,친족간의 성폭행,가정폭력
  • 술과 범죄, 그리고 Intoxication Defence
  • 보석제도 Bail
  • 음주운전 형사처벌 (DUI laws in KOREA, U.S.A.)
  • 교통사고형사처벌
  • 조세범처벌법위반죄
  • 회사거래, 인수합병(M&A) 범죄
  • 경찰수사 대응-수사권조정이후
  • 무고죄, 무고교사죄
  • 인터넷, SNS, 온라인 범죄
  • (특수,업무상,공익) 배임,횡령죄,신뢰관계위반죄
  • 사기죄, 특정범죄가중처벌에관한법률위반(사기)
  • 금융, Fund, Excnange 범죄
  • 허위공문서 작성,행사죄
  • 국가인권위원회
  • 국민권익위원회
  • 고위공직자수사처,공수처
  • 국민참여재판과 배심원제의 비교
  • 검찰수사심의위원회제도
  • 검찰,경찰,국정권 수사권범위조정
  • 공무원범죄,국가법익침해
  • 입시비리,채용비리,업무방해
  • 외국환관리법 위반죄
  • 국가보안법위반,자유민주주의헌법침해
  • 선거범죄,부정선거
  • 비영리법인,공공기관비리
  • 기지와 취재와 범죄
  • U.S.A. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP. 미국 연방법원 형사소송 규정)
  • U.S.A. California Criminal Procedure Code (미국 캘리포니아 형사소송법)
  • U.S.A. California Criminal Code (미국 캘리포니아 형법)
  • U.S.A. Common LAW Criminal LAW - Basics (미국 연방 및 각 State의 형법 이론 기초)
  • U.S.A. Federal Criminal LAW (미국 연방 형법)
  • U.S.A. Crime of Breach of Fiduciary Duty(배임죄)
  • U.S.A. Fraud(사기죄)
[Category]
성희롱,성폭력,성범죄 (Sex harassment LAWS in Korea, U.S.A.)


[Title]
The US Supreme Court Rules For Gender Equality! On 12 junio, 2017, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling for Sessions v. Morales-Santana to address the sex discrimination in the Immigration and Nationa
Start →

The US Supreme Court Rules For Gender Equality!

On 12 junio, 2017, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling for Sessions v. Morales-Santana 


to address the sex discrimination

in the Immigration and Nationality Act!


Unmarried American fathers and mothers will now have the same residency requirements

in order to pass on citizenship

to their children born abroad.

We sat down with EN's Legal Equality Program Manager, Antonia Kirkland 

to learn more about the ruling.

A version of this article was also featured on PassBlue.

************************************

The Supreme Court’s ruling represents real progress for women and men in the movement for gender equality. 


For the United States,

it bolsters constitutional protections

against sex discrimination and


means that


the sexist residency provisions

of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act


can no longer be applied.


The decision is also consistent with international law

as well as

several of the Sustainable Development Goals

adopted by all governments

at the UN in 2015,



the US included.




It provides


the latest example of the significant progress being made around the world at the national level, and


 as part of a growing global movement

to end unjust nationality laws


 that discriminate on the basis of sex.



In Sessions v. Morales-Santana,


the Court found that 


sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act were unconstitutional


because they violated the guarantee of equal protection

under the Fifth Amendment


by giving birthright citizenship preference

to children of unwed mothers

over unwed fathers.

The Facts

Under the law, a child born overseas and out of wedlock to an American mother could automatically become a US citizen if the mother previously lived in the US for at least one year. However, an unwed father could not pass US citizenship unless he had lived in the US for a continuous period of five years, including two years when he was over age 14.

By imposing different residency requirements for fathers and mothers, the law made it tougher for children of unwed American fathers to gain citizenship. In rejecting gender stereotypes, which the law was based on, this ruling is an important advance for equality on the basis of sex and has implications for parents passing US citizenship to children born outside of the US.

The case was bought by a son, Luis Ramon Morales-Santana, a New York resident born in the Dominican Republic to an unwed US citizen father and a Dominican mother. The parents eventually married, the father’s name was added to the birth certificate and the father took responsibility for his son.  Morales-Santana moved with his family to the US when he was 13-years-old and remained in America for decades. However, at the time of his birth, his American father fell 20 days short of the US residency required to qualify his son for citizenship at birth.

Had his unmarried mother, rather than his unmarried father, been an American citizen he would not have found himself in the situation of being potentially deported after being found guilty of federal crimes.  He, however, had a basis to challenge the citizenship law as unconstitutional sex discrimination. 

The role of amici in the decision

Together with pro-bono assistance from law firm Hughes Hubbard & Reed, LLP and Prof. Martha Davis of Northeastern School of Law, we submitted a ‘friend of the court (amici curiae) brief’, that was cited in the Court’s written opinion, highlighting international law and foreign case law on ending discrimination in national laws.

The brief also highlighted the US role at the United Nations and in its human rights reports in promoting equal rights for women and men to transfer their nationality to their children – which was contradicted by the government's appeal in this case.  

Equality Now’s campaign

Equality Now first highlighted the issue of discrimination in the US Immigration and Nationality Act in 1999 in its advocacy report, Words & Deeds, Holding Governments Accountable in the Beijing +5 Review Process. This report updated in 2004, 2010 and 2015 with a sampling of discriminatory nationality and other laws around the world on the anniversary of the adoption of the Beijing Platform for Action which was agreed to by 189 countries around the world, including the US. In particular, these campaign reports highlighted the requirement placed only on fathers, and not mothers, to agree in writing to provide financial support a child born out of wedlock overseas in order to transmit citizenship to that child.  

The section of the law requiring a declaration in writing of financial support from unwed fathers as a condition to giving citizenship to a child born abroad was challenged before the United States Supreme Court in Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001).  In noviembre 2000, Equality Now and our partners around the world submitted an amici curiae brief asking the Court to consider international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the US has ratified, as well as customary international law and jurisprudence from other countries. The Court held, however, that the law does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the United States Constitution. In her dissenting opinion Justice O’Connor wrote “[i]ndeed, the majority’s discussion may itself simply reflect the stereotype of male irresponsibility that is no more a basis for the validity of the classification than are stereotypes about the ‘traditional’ behavior patterns of women.”

In junio 2010, Equality Now, Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations and institutions from around the world filed an amici curiae brief at the United States Supreme Court challenging the section of this discriminatory statute which required a longer residency period for fathers than mothers to pass their nationality to their children born abroad and out of wedlock. However, the US Supreme Court in its decision of 13 junio 2011 in Flores-Villar v. United States, reaffirmed, without any opinion or explanation, the decision in the lower court upholding these discriminatory provisions.  Thus the stage was set for the constitutional challenge in Sessions v. Morales-Santana.

Parenthood and gender stereotypes

Underpinning the US government’s stance to keep the discriminatory residency requirements was the assumption that unwed mothers are more likely to take responsibility for their children than unwed fathers, and therefore a mother’s offspring would have closer connections to the United States. The government also claimed that children born overseas to an unmarried female US citizen would be at greater risk of statelessness - thus ending up with no citizenship from any country - than if they were born to an unmarried male.

However, based on the fact that it is usually the mother who is discriminated against in nationality laws around the world, the Court rejected the government’s argument, stating, “One can hardly characterize as gender neutral a scheme allegedly attending to the risk of statelessness for children of unwed US– citizen mothers while ignoring the same risk for children of unwed US–citizen fathers.”

The ruling affirmed that discriminatory residency requirements violate the equal protection principle, and the Court held that “the gender line Congress drew is incompatible” with the Constitution’s guarantee of “the equal protection of the laws” to all. If the US had an explicit guarantee of equality in its Constitution contained in an “equal rights amendment,”then this would not even be a question, and it would give the US more credibility with other countries that already have such guarantees in their constitutions and on the world stage as a defender of human rights.

The opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, further points out that the law was based on flawed assumptions that unwed mothers are the sole guardians of children born outside marriage, and on stereotypes that most men care little about children born out of wedlock.

She said the different requirements: “date from an era when the lawbooks of our Nation were rife with overbroad generalizations about the way men and women are”… and reflected the “once habitual, but now untenable” assumption that “in marriage, husband is dominant, wife subordinate,” while an “unwed mother is the natural and sole guardian of a nonmarital child.”

The Remedy

The Court did not feel it was in the position itself to equalize the residency requirements to benefit Morales-Santana. This means the plaintiff has not been granted what he was asking for, namely to be recognized as a citizen from birth.  The Court reversed the previous ruling in a lower court that shortened the residency requirement for him and said it is up to Congress to determine the length.  In the meantime, the Court said the five year rule should apply to everyone. The Court also said, however, that, "In the interim, the Government must ensure that the laws in question are administered in a manner-free from gender-based discrimination." 

This means that going forward, unmarried American fathers and mothers will be subject to the same residency requirements in order to pass on citizenship to their children born abroad, and it is a real step towards eliminating sexism in nationality laws worldwide. Equality Now will continue to work to eliminate all discrimination in the law








← End



[Title]
The US Supreme Court Rules For Gender Equality! On 12 junio, 2017, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling for Sessions v. Morales-Santana to address the sex discrimination in the Immigration and Nationa



  Important   119 →   성희롱 피해자 관련 법제의 개관    

1 [2][3][4][5][6][7]   Next →
     
       

[Category]


  • 일반형사사건 (Criminal law GENERAL in Korea, U.S.A.)
  • 구속,압수수색 영장,실질심사
  • 정식재판청구(약식명령)
  • 형사재판과 판결
  • 유죄확정판결에 대한 재심청구제도
  • 증거와 증거능력, 신빙성, 위법증거배제
  • 성희롱,성폭력,성범죄 (Sex harassment LAWS in Korea, U.S.A.)
  • 근친,친족간의 성폭행,가정폭력
  • 술과 범죄, 그리고 Intoxication Defence
  • 보석제도 Bail
  • 음주운전 형사처벌 (DUI laws in KOREA, U.S.A.)
  • 교통사고형사처벌
  • 조세범처벌법위반죄
  • 회사거래, 인수합병(M&A) 범죄
  • 경찰수사 대응-수사권조정이후
  • 무고죄, 무고교사죄
  • 인터넷, SNS, 온라인 범죄
  • (특수,업무상,공익) 배임,횡령죄,신뢰관계위반죄
  • 사기죄, 특정범죄가중처벌에관한법률위반(사기)
  • 금융, Fund, Excnange 범죄
  • 허위공문서 작성,행사죄
  • 국가인권위원회
  • 국민권익위원회
  • 고위공직자수사처,공수처
  • 국민참여재판과 배심원제의 비교
  • 검찰수사심의위원회제도
  • 검찰,경찰,국정권 수사권범위조정
  • 공무원범죄,국가법익침해
  • 입시비리,채용비리,업무방해
  • 외국환관리법 위반죄
  • 국가보안법위반,자유민주주의헌법침해
  • 선거범죄,부정선거
  • 비영리법인,공공기관비리
  • 기지와 취재와 범죄
  • U.S.A. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP. 미국 연방법원 형사소송 규정)
  • U.S.A. California Criminal Procedure Code (미국 캘리포니아 형사소송법)
  • U.S.A. California Criminal Code (미국 캘리포니아 형법)
  • U.S.A. Common LAW Criminal LAW - Basics (미국 연방 및 각 State의 형법 이론 기초)
  • U.S.A. Federal Criminal LAW (미국 연방 형법)
  • U.S.A. Crime of Breach of Fiduciary Duty(배임죄)
  • U.S.A. Fraud(사기죄)

Copyright 1997-2022 TAX & LAW (세금과 법률)
본 site의 정보는 영리를 목적으로 제공하는 것이 아니며, 이곳에 등재된 모든 글은 "공개"된 대법원판례(온라인이 아니라 대법원이 종이책으로 출간한 대법원 법원공보상의 판례집)에 기한 것으로 실명과 무관합니다.
따라서, 이 곳에 기재된 대법원 판례에 혹시라도 귀하의 성명과 인적사항이 있다면, 그것은 귀하의 것이 아니며, 귀하와 동명이인이거나 가상의 인적사항이라는 점에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
그럼에도 불구하고 이를 귀하의 인적사항이라고 주장하신다면, 귀하는 본 사이트가 아니라 대법원에 그러한 점을 적시하여 공개된 (종이책으로 출간된 대법원 법원공보상의 판례집) 판례의 내용을 전부 직접 수정을 해줄 것을 스스로 주장하십시요. 본 사무실에 연락하실 부분이 아닙니다.
상담
FEE
소개
| 민사
토지
금융
| 세무
TAX
조세
| 행정
헌법
노동
| 병역
여권
국적
| 특허
PAT
상표
| 모욕
명예
훼손
| 연예
ART
예술
| 형사
범죄
고소
| 관세
국제
통관
| USA
이민
VISA
| 이혼
상속
가사
| Foreign
Clients
| |
[세금과 법률] ↑