Doctor Finds Out He Is Illegal Alien

 You've probably seen the headlines. Most are similar to this one from The Daily Caller: "American-Born Doctor Shocked To Learn His Citizenship Was Revoked." The doctor in question is 61 year old Siavash Sobhani, who was born in the United States but was the child of an Iranian diplomat. Although not caught before, in his latest renewal of a passport, someone at the State Department finally realized that Sobhani was not a United States citizen. He received a letter from the State Department which the article describes:

“As a member of your parent’s household at the time of your birth, you also enjoyed full diplomatic immunity from the jurisdiction of the United States,” the letter obtained by The Washington Post stated. “As such, you were born not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, you did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.”

Instead of being deported for being an illegal alien, the article relates: 

Sobhani was then directed to visit a website where he could apply for a lawful permanent residence, per the letter. Since his discovery, Sobhani has reportedly applied for permanent residence, already spending more than $40,000 in legal fees which may never be resolved, according to The Washington Post.

The article continues:

    ‘This was a shock to me,” Sobhani told the outlet, “I’m a doctor. I’ve been here all my life. I’ve paid my taxes. I’ve voted for presidents. I’ve served my community in Northern Virginia. During COVID, I was at work, putting myself at risk, putting my family at risk. So when you’re told after 61 years, ‘Oh there was a mistake, you’re no longer a U.S. citizen,’ it’s really, really shocking.”

    Sobhani has written letters to Democrat Virginia Sen. Mark Warner and Democrat Virginia Rep. Gerald Connolly seeking their help in the matter. He noted he cannot live safely in Iran due to previously speaking out against the government, as well as having family involved in U.S. politics. 

    The issue here is "birthright citizenship". You've probably heard the term because it is tied to the issue of "anchor babies" and "birth tourism" where foreigners, whether here illegally or, ostensibly, here legally but temporarily will have a child in the United States in order to get a foothold to stay here and bring in their relatives. It is one of the exploits being used to enable the mass migration crises. 

     Broadly speaking, "birthright citizenship" encompasses two doctrines: “jus soli” (right of soil) where a person acquires citizenship by being born in that country or its territorial possessions; and “jus sanguinis” (right of blood) where a person acquires the citizenship of his or her parents at birth.     However, in the United States, "birthright citizenship" and the arguments about it revolve around the application of the doctrine of "jus soli".  

    Only 33 countries have unrestricted jus soli birthright citizenship. In the vast majority of countries, citizenship at birth is determined by the parents' citizenship. Most countries that adopted "jus soli" are in the Americas, probably to encourage immigration in the 19th Century--and several European countries that had adopted "jus soli" have limited it or abandoned it altogether. 

    The United States first expressly adopted "birthright citizenship" as part of the 14th Amendment which states, in the relevant part: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The purpose of this language was to override the holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the descendants of slaves “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”

    The primary issue when interpreting the language in the 14th Amendment is how broadly to read the limitation of "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. There are good arguments that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not include illegal aliens, but the issue has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. (See also "Birthright Citizenship: An Overview" from the Center for Immigration Study). However, in its 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that there were two categories of people "born in the United States" that were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and, therefore, not citizens: members of Indian tribes and children born to parents in the diplomatic service of a foreign country. A third exception are children born to a member of a hostile occupying force. (Citizenship was later extended by Congress to members of Indian tribes). 

    Dr. Sobhani falls into the second exception for children of foreign diplomats. So when various articles report that he had his citizenship revoked, they are incorrect. He never was a citizen.  

Related Articles:

• "Virginia doctor, Siavash Sobhani, who was born in US loses his CITIZENSHIP after applying for new passport because his dad was Iranian diplomat and he wasn't entitled to claim it"--Daily Mail.
• "Iranian-American doctor born in the USA has citizenship stripped over rarely used law"--Mirror.