Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/56429
Title: Neither Within Nor Without: The Curious Case of U.S. Citizenship in American Samoa and the Insular Cases
Contributor(s): Fadgen, Tim (author); Charlton, Guy  (author)orcid 
Publication Date: 2023-08-04
Open Access: Yes
Handle Link: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/56429
Abstract: 

This Article considers the problematic notion of citizenship rights among colonized Pacific Island Peoples since the nineteenth century. In particular, this Article reviews these rights for American Samoans in light of the recent Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision Fitisemanu v. United States. In Fitisemanu, the Tenth Circuit, relying on a repurposed notion of the Insular Cases, denied American citizenship rights to native born American Samoans despite the guarantees extended to individuals "born or naturalized in the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Article argues that this decision inappropriately narrowed the application of the Fourteenth Amendment with its extended application of the Insular Cases' fact-based "impractical and anomalous" inquiry to conclude the federal government's efforts to provide local government and fa'a Samoa was in effect a recognition of American Samoa's right of self-determination such that the objections of the territorial government to these citizenship rights militated against the recognition of citizenship. In the process of this discussion, this Article considers how substantially similar issues regarding New Zealand and British citizenship were implicated in the context of Western Samoa in Lesa v. Attorney General of New Zealand. The circumstances surrounding these cases involve similar legal and policy arguments which have perpetuated the "subject" status of colonized peoples and the initial denial of equality and citizenship rights. This underscores the historical resistance of colonial states to extend full membership rights to their colonized subjects. We contend that the effect of the Insular Cases' framework, despite claims to the contrary, has not protected Indigenous culture from American cultural and constitutional hegemony but continues to deny full legal membership into the political community that enjoys full sovereignty over the land of their birth.

Publication Type: Journal Article
Source of Publication: University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy, 33(2), p. 1-22
Publisher: University of Florida, Levin College of Law
Place of Publication: United States of America
ISSN: 1942-8626
1047-8035
Fields of Research (FoR) 2020: 480302 Comparative law
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2020: 280114 Expanding knowledge in Indigenous studies
Peer Reviewed: Yes
HERDC Category Description: C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
School of Law

Files in This Item:
1 files
File SizeFormat 
Show full item record

Page view(s)

396
checked on Apr 28, 2024

Download(s)

4
checked on Apr 28, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons