Law In Flores-Villar Case Was Amended In 1986, But It's Still Sexist

(Crossposted)

I previously wrote about Flores-Viller v. US, a case involving an unequal immigration law which discriminates against fathers.

I just found out that the law was changed to be less onerous back in 1986. That’s a good thing. It is, however, still one law for fathers and a different law for mothers; that sexism seems irrational to me. This law should be amended to be identical for parents of either sex.

From the New York Times:

The law, since amended, allowed fathers to transmit citizenship to their children only if the fathers had lived in the United States before the child was born for a total of 10 years, five of them after age 14. Mothers were required to have lived in the United States for a year before their child was born. (The amended law kept the general system but shortened the residency requirement for fathers.)

And according to KPBS legal analysis Dan Eaton:

In 1986, the law was changed so that the father only has to have lived at – lived 5 years in the United States or continuously be present in the United States for at least 5 years, at least 2 of which were after he turned 14. Now had that been the law, depending on exactly how many months after 16 years old Mr. Flores-Villar’s father was, he would’ve satisfied the law. But the law in effect at the time Mr. Flores-Villar was born is the law that controls, so this amendment that was enacted in 1986 has no effect on this case.