26 2

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 26-2 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 36
C FYVED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUG 2t4 PH
AUSTIN DIVISION
3:
:,
1:r:
Maria Isabel Perales Serna on her own behalf

and as next friend for her minor daughter
ff
ff
K.Z.P.S., et al.,
ff
If
Plaintiffs,
ff
f-f
v.
ff
C.A. 1:15-cv-00446"-.
If
Texas Department of State Health Services,

Vital Statistics Unit, Commissioner Kirk Cole,
in his official capacity, Unit Chief Geraldine
Harris, in her official capacity,
ff
ff
ff
ff
If
Defendants
If
BRIEF OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES ("MEXICO")

AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
111
IDENTITY. INTEREST. AND AUTHORITY OF AMICUS CURIAE
I. IDENTITY
II. INTERESTS AND SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
ARGUMENT
PART I. THE DENIAL OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES TO U.S. CITIZENS VIOLATES THE

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF THOSE U.S. CITIZENS.
A. DENIAL OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE VIOLATES RIGHT TO IDENTITY OF THE U.S. CITIZEN CHILD.
B. THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DENIAL OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES CREATES A CASTE OF UNDOCUMENTED

U.S. CITIZENS.
C. THE DENIAL OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES TO THE U.S. CITIZEN CHILDREN OF MEXICAN PARENTS ALSO
DENIES THOSE CHILDREN EFFECTIVE MEXICAN CITIZENSHIP.
D. THE DENIAL OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES TO U.S. CITIZEN CHILDREN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY

INTERFERES WITH THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND IMPERILS U.S. CITIZEN CHILDREN.
E. THE DENIAL OF CHILDREN'S BIRTH CERTIFICATES ASSAULTS THE DIGNITY OF U.S. CITIZEN
CHILDREN.
12
PART II. DIPLOMATIC CONSIDERATIONS
14
III. PASSPORTS AND CONSULAR IDENTIFICATION CARDS ARE RELIABLE PROOF OF

IDENTIFICATION THAT WOULD ALLOW TEXAS TO ENSURE THAT IT ONLY PROVIDES
BIRTH CERTIFICATES TO THE ACTUAL PARENTS OF CHILDREN BORN IN TEXAS
16
A. NATIONAL PASSPORTS ARE RELIABLE RECOGNIZED FORMS OF PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION.
16
B. MEXICAN CONSULAR IDENTIFICATION CARDS ("MATRiCULAS CONSULARES") ARE

RELIABLE AND
SECURE FORMS OF PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION.
17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
19
APPENDIX - AFFIDAVIT OF CARLOS GONZALEZ GUTIERREZ
20
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTIONS
Constitution of the United States of America ("U.S."), Fourteenth Amendment, Section
Constitution of the United Mexican States ("Mexico"), Article
TREATIES
Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1990 (U.S. signature 1995, no ratification)
Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 1949
Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe Final Act, Helsinki, 1975
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976, (U.S. signature 1977,
ratification/accession 1992), Article 7 and Article 24, paragraph 2

International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, 1987 (U.S. signature 1988, ratification/accession 1994)
International Convention on Civil Aviation (also known as the "Chicago Convention,"
1944 (U.S. signature 1944, ratification/accession 1946)
Nuremberg Code (1947)

Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement between the United States of
America and the United Mexican States Concluded at Guadalupe Hidalgo,

February 2, 1848; Ratification Advised by Senate of the United States of
America, with Amendments, March 10, 1848; Ratified by the President of the
United States of America, March 16, 1848; Ratifications Exchanged at Queretaro,
May 30, 1848; Proclaimed, July 4, 1848 ("Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo")
111
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963. 596 UNTS 261; 21 UST. 77;
TIAS 6820 (1963)
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 500 UNTS 95; 23 UST 3227; 55 AJIL 1064
(1961)
CASES
Afroyim
v.
Rusk, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)
Atkins
v.
Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
Brown
v.
Plata, 563 U.S. _____;
131 5. Ct, 1910 (2011)
Cleveland Board ofEducation v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1973)
Hal/v. Florida, 572 U.S. _____, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014)

Griswoldv. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954)

Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968)
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S.
(1967)
MedellIn v. Texas, 552 U.S.
(2008)
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S.

Obergefellv. Hodges,576U.S.
(2012), 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)

(2015), 14-556
Perez v. Brownwell, 356 U.S. 254 (1967)

Pierce
v.
Society ofSisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. 158 (1944)

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)
iv
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Trop
US.
v.
Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)

Wong Kim Dark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
v.
S. v.
Windsor, 570 U.S. _______, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013)
Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164 (1972)
INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Andorra Bruno and K. Larry Storrs, Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for
Congress: "Consular Identification Cards: Domestic and Foreign Policy
Implications, the Mexican Case, and Related Legislation, Library of Congress,

Updated May 26, 2005,
accessed
July 24, 2015
Jennifer K. Elsea and Michael John Garcia, Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Report for Congress: "Implications of the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations upon the Regulation of Consular Identification Cards," Library of
Congress, Updated May 23, 2005, https:/!www.fas.org/sgp/crs/rnisc/RS21627.pdf,
accessed July 24, 2015

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Border Security: Consular Identification
Accepted within United States, but Consistent Federal Guidance Needed, GAO04-881, August 2004, http://www.ancir.org/arehives/d0488l.pdf, Accessed July
15, 2015
I!4
IDENTITY, INTEREST, AND AUTHORITY OF AMICUS CURIAE

I. Identity
The United Mexican States (hereinafter, "Mexico") is a sovereign nation. Mexico
files this brief through undersigned counsel.1
II. Interests and sources of authority

Mexico is responsible under international and domestic law to protect its
nationals2
wherever they may be residing. This responsibility runs parallel to its interest
to maintain strong, friendly, and mutually beneficial relations with the United States of
America (hereinafter, "U.S.") and individual U.S. states. The aforementioned is

consistent with the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations (1961) and the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations (1963), to which both the U.S. and Mexico are
signatories.3" These same two agreements also provide the authority for Mexico to file
this amicus brief.
Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides that
No counsel for a party authored a brief in whole or in part, and no counsel for a party
made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief.
No persons or entities other than the amicus, its members, or their counsel made a
monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of the brief.
Article 30, section A of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States establishes
that Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or naturalization. Mexican nationality is
granted to children born abroad of a Mexican born parent.
The U.S. signed the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations on June 29, 1961 and
ratified it on November 13, 1972. Mexico signed the Convention on Diplomatic Relations
on April 18, 1961 and ratified it on June 16, 1965.
"The U.S. signed the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations on April 24, 1963,
ratifying the Convention on November 24, 1969. Mexico signed the Vienna Convention
on Consular Relations on October 7, 1963, and ratified it on June 16, 1965.
the functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in

Representing the sending State in the receiving State; [and]
Protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of
its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law..
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations at Article
consular functions. Relevant provisions of Article
further elaborates
specify following responsibilities:
(a) protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and
of its nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, within the limits
permitted by international law;..

(e) helping and assisting nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate,
of the sending State;..
(h) safeguarding, within the limits imposed by the laws and regulations of
the receiving State, the interests of minors and other persons lacking full
capacity who are nationals of the sending State, particularly where any
guardianship or trusteeship is required with respect to such persons;
[and]
(m) performing any other functions entrusted to a consular post by the
sending State which are not prohibited by the laws and regulations of the
receiving State or to which no objection is taken by the receiving State or
which are referred to in the international agreements in force between the
sending State and the receiving State.
Mexico files this amicus brief in order to protect its nationals and their families, and in
service of its relations with the U.S., as described above.
'teuJAt*i1
Mexico fears the creation in Texas of a vulnerable citizenry: undocumented
citizens of the United States. The Texas Department of Vital Statistics refuses to provide
birth certificates to U.S. citizen children when their parents are unable to present U.S.
government-issued identification, even when those parents present other highly reliable
identity documents. In refusing to issue birth certificates to U.S. citizens, the State of
Texas harms these individual U.S. citizens in violation of the U.S. Constitution and
international law. At the same time, the State of Texas jeopardizes long-established,
mutually beneficial consular practices of the U.S. and Mexico. Mexico fully and
emphatically agrees with the claims made by Plaintiffs.

Part I of Mexico's argument below describes how the current Vital Statistics
practices violate the individual rights of certain U.S. citizen children. Part II explains that
the current policy negatively affects relations between the U.S. and Mexico. Part III
clarifies that the Department of Vital Statistics policies and practices are not necessary to
protect the integrity of U.S. birth certificates.
PART I. THE DENIAL OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES TO U.S. CITIZENS

VIOLATES THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF THOSE U.S. CITIZENS.
In denying birth certificates to U.S. citizen children whose parents are unable to
present U.S. government-issued identification, even when those parents are able to
present other reliable identification (such as consular identification cards or passports
without currently valid U.S. visas), the State of Texas attempts to punish immigrants
whom it believes have violated federal immigration laws. The primary effect of such
denial, however, is to harm U.S. citizen children. The U.S. Constitution forbids the
differential treatment of children based on their parents' status or actions.
'[V}isting. . condemnation on the head of an infant' for the misdeeds of

the parents is illogical, unjust, and 'contrary to the basic concept of our
system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual
responsibility or wrongdoing' Plyler v. Doe, 452 U.S. 202, 238, citing
Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 175 (1972).
See also, Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968).
As explained below, the actions of the
State of Texas also violate international law.
The Constitution also prohibits discrimination against Mexican Americans. Hernandez v.

Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954). Whether the State of Texas is in fact discriminating on the
basis of Mexican origin in this instance is a question of fact, and not the focus of this brief.
A. Denial of a
birth certificate violates the right to identity of the U.S. citizen child.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that, "Everyone has a right to
recognition everywhere as a person before the law" (Article 6). In binding itself to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), the U.S. acknowledged the
fundamental right of each person to have an identity.6 "Every child shall be registered
immediately after birth and shall have a name, "International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, Article 24, paragraph 2. It is an unequivocal human rights violation to
deny birth registration to children born within the territorial limits of the U.S., quite
independently of whether these children would be entitled to citizenship. As a State party

to said international conventions, this obligation is binding on the United States, and
therefore on Texas.
In practice, assertion of one's identity depends on identification; in the modern
world this has primarily been through documents. An individual may not simply assert
his or her identity in order to be recognized. Rather, as we all well know, individuals
must offer proof of identity in order to participate in almost every realm of life: social,
civic, public, and political life, typically through documents and increasingly also through
electronic means. This identification begins at birth; a person cannot wait until she or he
reaches the age of majority in order to establish his or her identity. The way an infant or
child acquires identity documents normally is through his or her parents.
The U.S. signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on October 5,
1977, and ratified it on June 8, 1992. Mexico similarly bound itself to this covenant
through its ratification on March 3, 1981. Though both the U.S. and Mexico expressed
reservations to the Covenant, none of the reservations pertain to the section about identity.
4
A birth certificate, in the U.S. as in Mexico and in many other countries, is the
first and fundamental identity document on which all other identity documents are based.
This is true for both U.S.-born and naturalized U.S. citizens, as well as for those born
abroad who acquire or derive U.S. citizenship. Without a birth certificate from the
jurisdiction in which a person is born, it is exceedingly difficult for a person to obtain any
other government-issued identification: passport, driver's license, state, or student
identifications. Lacking a government-issued identification further hinders access to basic
services. Without these identifications, U.S. born children would be impeded to access
education and health services leaving them in a high vulnerability situation.
B. The unconstitutional denial of birth certificates creates a caste of
undocumented
U.S. citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution at Section
provides that a
person born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen: "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." Thirty years after the
1868
ratification of the Fourteenth
Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that this birthright of citizenship does
not
depend on the citizenship of parents of a U.S.-born child. In US.

U.s. 649 (1898)
v.
Wong Kim Dark, 169
the Court confirmed that the children of Chinese citizens born in the
U.S. are indeed U.S. citizens.

In Trop v.
Dulles,
the Supreme Court ruled in that a person could not lose his
citizenship by committing a crime, because denationalization or expatriation

would
violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel or unusual
punishment. 356
v.
86
(1958).
Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior. . . The

deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the Government may use to
express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct, however reprehensible that
conduct may be, Trop, 93-94.
Denationalization is extraordinarily cruel because it involves

the total destruction of the individual's status in organized society. It is a
form of punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for the
individual the political existence that was centuries in the development.
The punishment strips the citizen of his status in the national and
international political community. His very existence is at the sufferance
of the country in which he happens to find himself. While any one
country may accord him some rights and, presumably, as long as he
remained in this country, he would enjoy the limited rights of an alien, no
country need do so, because he is stateless. Furthermore, his enjoyment of
even the limited rights of an alien might be subject to termination at any
time by reason of deportation. In short, the expatriate has lost the right to
have rights... (101 102).
[Denationalization] subjects the individual to a fate of ever-increasing fear
and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established
against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when
and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He
may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized
people. He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international
community of democracies. It is no answer to suggest that all the
disastrous consequences of this fate may not be brought to bear on a
stateless person. The threat makes the punishment obnoxious (102)
(footnotes omitted).
If depriving an individual of her citizenship as a penalty for her own conduct is

abhorrent, how much more so it is to effectively deprive someone of her citizenship on
account of another person's conduct. This is the effect of actions of the Texas
Department of Vital Statistics, however, when it refuses to grant birth certificates to the
parents of U.S. citizen children, when those parents cannot prove that they are legally
present in the U.S.
A person born in the U.S. cannot lose his or her citizenship through carelessness
or accident or even voluntary performance of actions that appear to be inconsistent with
U.S. citizenship. Afroyim
v.
Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), citing Wong Kim Dark and
overruling Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958).
To lose one's citizenship, it is not
enough to do something that evidences allegiance to another nation; a U.S.-born citizen
must decide to relinquish her citizenship before the government can revoke it. The
government must prove the voluntary nature of relinquishment by a preponderance of
evidence. Vance
v.
Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980).
I)enial of citizenship violates not only the U.S. Constitution, but also internatlonal
law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights insists that 'every child
has the right to acquire a nationality." Article 24(3). Texas has erected an obstacle to
this right.
In the same way that a person's identity is of little practical use without proof,
U.S. citizenship
without the documentation to prove it --is empty. With its refusal to
issue birth certificates to the U.S. citizen children's guardians, Texas creates a caste of
citizens invisible as such. The children begin their lives without "the right to have
rights." These quasi-citizens, outcasts, will likely experience the harsh effects of being
unable to prove their true status for many years to come. We are witnessing the creation
of a vulnerable citizenry: undocumented citizens.

In Afroyim, the Court specifically overruled Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958). In
Perez, the Supreme Court had said that Congress could indeed revoke the citizenship of a
person who had voluntary performed specific actions, such as becoming "involved in
foreign affairs and evidenc[ingl an allegiance to another country inconsistent" with U.S.
citizenship, "thereby abandoning his [U.S.1 citizenship." Congress was entitled to revoke
that person's citizenship, even though he had not intended to give up his citizenship with
his acts. Since Afroyim, Congress no longer has the power to do so.
C. The denial of birth certificates to the U.S. citizen children of Mexican parents
also denies those children effective Mexican citizenship.
A child of a Mexican parent or both Mexican parents born outside of Mexico has
the right to Mexican citizenship, but without a birth certificate establishing her or his
identity and parentage, the child cannot claim that right. Denial of a birth certificate
violates international law in this way as well. As noted above, the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights insists that "every child has the right to acquire a
nationality." Article 24(3). Without a birth certificate, a child cannot acquire or assert
U.S. or Mexican nationality or citizenship.
D. The denial of birth certificates to U.S. citizen children unconstitutionally
interferes with the parent-child relationship and imperils U.S. citizen children.
The U.S. Constitution protects a person's right "to marry, establish a home and
bring up children," Meyer
v.
Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); Skinner v. Oklahoma,
316 U.S. 535 (1942). Supreme Court decisions over time have clarified the nature and
extent of this right. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court held that
married couples have the right to use contraception; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S.
(1967)
struck anti-"miscegenation" statutes as anathema to both due process and equal

protection guarantees. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-640
("freedom of personal choice in matters of. . . family life is one of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"); and many other cases
through, more recently United States
v.
Windsor (2013) and Obegerfell v. Hodges (2015).
Similarly, the Constitution also protects "the liberty of parents and guardians to
direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." Pierce
Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534 (1925). In Prince
v.
v.
Society of
Massachusetts the Supreme Court
confirmed that "it is cardinal with [the Court] that the custody, care and nurture of the
child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation
for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder," 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects family life at Article 12.
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home, or
correspondence.
. .
"and even more explicitly at Article
16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race,
nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its
dissolution...
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by society and the State.
Though not binding on nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets a
standard to which states and collectives of states ought to aspire. As noted earlier,
however, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is binding on both the
U.S. and Mexico.8 Article 17 of this covenant echoes Article 12 of the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights; Article 23 of the Covenant echoes Article 16 of the

Declaration. Article 26 of the Declaration, like the U.S. Constitution, assigns the right to
choose the type of education children receive to their parents.

The refusal of the State of Texas to issue birth certificates to certain parents of
U.S. citizens -- including the Mexican, Honduran, and Guatemalan plaintiffs herein
See Footnote 4, above.
unlawfully interferes with the relationship between parents and

children. There is
nothing abstract about these rights or relationships. The

recognition of the parent-child
relationship determines the course and texture of ordinary days at
home or school; it can
determine the outcome of worrisome or even terrifying night visits to
hospital emergency
rooms.
Parents are responsible for caring for their children; this
responsibility is also a
right. A parent must be able to demonstrate her relationship
with a child in order to fulfill
many aspects of this responsibility. Parents must sign releases in

order for their children
to be examined by physicians or health care
professionals, vaccinated, tested, diagnosed,
treated, or prescribed glasses, hearing aids, medicine, or

prosthetics. Schools require
parents to register their children and sign permission slips for
outings to parks, fire
stations, museums, or the Texas Capitol. A child cannot participate
in soccer or take
swimming lessons, experiment with ballet or karate, go on a hike

or stay after school, or
even appear in a class photograph or yearbook, without a
parent's consent. To deprive a
U.S. citizen of the single most important document in her
or his life is to risk depriving
that child of all, or nearly all, activities that take place

outside the home.
Among the several preoccupations of the U.S. Supreme Court in
Obergefell v.
Hodges,
were the practical effects of failing to recognize family,
14-556, 576 U.S._____
(2015). In the case of one committed couple with

children, the Court worried that
If an emergency were to arise, schools and hospitals may treat the

three
children as if they had only one parent. And, were tragedy to
befall either
DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal rights over the
children
she had not been permitted to adopt. This couple seeks
relief from the
continuing uncertainty their unmarried status creates in their lives
(5).
When a child faces an emergency, he or she needs his or her parent or guardian. If the
State of Texas refuses to provide a parent with the proof of her relationship to the child,
an emergency may quickly devolve into chaos or catastrophe.
The lack of a child's birth certificate likely will preclude voluntary travel by that
child and possibly her or his entire family. An adult cannot cross an international border
with a child, unless the adult can prove that she is the parent or guardian of that child, or
that the child's parent or legal guardian has explicitly approved such travel. A policy by
the Department of Vital Statistics that has the apparent goal of making life in the U.S.
more difficult for undocumented immigrants may have the possibly unintended effect of
preventing a family's travel outside of the U.S. --- including a return to the parents'
country of origin.9
Depriving parents of the ability to care for their children, by withholding the
document that would facilitate their care, imperils those children. Government both
requires and denies documentation the parents need to validate this relationship and to
care for their children.
Texas consigns an entire group of U.S. citizen children to a precarious existence
without regular access to education or health care. It does so in violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.
Perhaps paradoxically, the refusal by the State of Texas to provide a birth certificate to an
undocumented parent of a U.S. born child may hinder the enforcement of U.S. immigration
laws. If the U.S. Department of Homeland Security seeks to remove a parent of a child and
the parent cannot cross an international border with her child for lack of birth certificate,
then protracted and expensive litigation is sure to ensure.
11
E. The denial of children's birth certificates assaults the dignity of U.S. citizen
children.
The U.S. Constitution protects the dignity of persons. Dignity, an inherent aspect
of each human being, underlies U.S. constitutional guarantees and is also protected by
them. In Trop v. Dulles, Justice Earl Warren held that "[t]he basic concept underlying the
Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man," Trop
v.
Dulles 356 U.S. 86,
100 (1958) (plurality opinion). The U.S. Supreme Court has continued to emphasize as
much. Atkins
v.
Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002); Roper
Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S.
v.
Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005);
(2011) ("Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity
inherent in all persons. Respect for that dignity animates the Eighth Amendment
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment" and "A prison that deprives prisoners
of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of
human dignity and has no place in civilized society"); Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S.
134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014).
In Skinner
v.
Oklahoma, Justice Robert H. Jackson invoked human dignity as he
voted with his colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike a state statute that
authorized the sterilization of "habitual criminals." Justice William 0. Douglas wrote

that the statute violated Equal Protection regarding the fundamental rights to marry and to
procreate. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone faulted the Oklahoma statute for inadequate due
process. Justice Jackson agreed that the U.S. Constitution doomed the statute on both of
those grounds, but added to these "constitutional questions of gravity" an additional
concern.
12
There are limits to the extent to which a legislatively represented majority

may conduct biological experiments at the expense ofthe dignity and
personality and natural powers of a minority even those who have been
guilty of what the majority define as crimes. 316 U.S. 535, 546 (emphasis
added).
Though his words of warning are only dicta, they are compelling and persuasive
nonetheless. Dignity is important even apart from equal protection and due process.
Dignity was central to the Supreme Court's recent ruling, in Obergefell v.

Hodges, that both due process and equal protection require that states license marriages
between same-sex couples and that states recognize those marriages that have been
conducted out of state (14-556, 576 U.S. ________, June 26, 2015).
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State

shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law." The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most
of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. .In addition these liberties
extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and
autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and
beliefs (citations omitted).
In the opinion, the dignity of marriage is opposed to laws that attach stigma to children of
unmarried parents, or that "harm and humiliate the children of same-sex marriage" (15).
By the same logic, U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants also possess the same
dignity, and should not be humiliated or make to feel lesser by denying them their
identity on account of their parents' immigration status. In stigmatizing these children,
Texas assaults their dignity. If "marriage is a keystone of the Nation's social order," (16)
so is the bond between parent and child is irreducible, at least during the child's infancy.
The Mexican Constitution, too, insists on the dignity of persons, setting forth in
its first Article that any act that threatens human dignity or is aim at nullifying or
diminishing the rights and freedoms of the persons is prohibited:
13
Any form of discrimination based on ethnic or national origin, gender,

age, disabilities, social or health conditions, religion, opinions, sexual
orientation, marital status or any other form that attacks human dignity or
is aim at nullifying or diminishing the persons' rights and freedoms is
prohibited.
Artice 1, Paragraph 5.
Dignity is a fundamental principle in international law, one that underlies other

rights. Dignity is the foundation of the Nuremberg Code regarding experimentation on
human beings. The Helsinki Final Act (1975) provides that States participating in the
Conference on Security and Co-operation "will promote and encourage the effective
exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms all of
which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free
and full development" (emphasis added) (a Vu).'0

The refusal of the State of Texas Department of Vital Statistics to provide birth
certificates to certain U.S. citizen children, through their parents, constitutes an assault on
dignity of those U.S. citizen children, and on those children's first and primary
relationship.
PART II. DIPLOMATIC CONSIDERATIONS

Mexico and the United States have a unique, complex but fruitful bilateral
relation. The roots of cooperation between Mexico and the United States run deep in
areas such as trade, infrastructure, environmental issues, law enforcement and rule of law,
fight against impunity, education and cultural exchanges, among many others. The close
10
U.S. participated in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which

opened in Helsinki on July 3, 1973, continued in Geneva between September 1973 and July
1975, and concluded in Helsinki on August 1, 1975.
14
ties between the two countries and societies also present great
opportunities for individual
states and their peoples.
Mexico and Texas currently enjoy unprecedented levels of understanding

and
cooperation, which translates into concrete opportunities for shared prosperity
in both
societies.
Mexico believes that the strong, vital relation with Texas and the
unique-like-noother relation with the United States, warrant respect for Mexican
citizens and also for
Mexico's official documents, issued with the highest standards of security.

Among the long-established duties of consular missions is the issuance of
passports and consular identification cards, Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations,
596 UNTS 261; 21 UST. 77; TIAS 6820 (1963) at Article 5 (d).
Logic dictates that
reciprocal recognition of documents issued by friendly nations will most

effectively
enable the identification of persons; custom supports such

recognition. It is "traditional
practice," wrote the authors of a Congressional Research Report in 2005,

"for many
institutions in one country to accept the official documents of another
country for a
variety of transactions, such as accepting a U.S. driver's license for

driving automobiles
in Mexico. Bruno and Storrs, 12.

This tradition of reciprocity merits respect, for everyone's benefit.
The U.S.
Department of State, testified one of its officials,

issues documentation other than a passport for U.S. citizens
abroad and at
times occasionally issues similar identity cards [similar to consular
identification cards] or travel documents. . Should a foreign country
decide to limit acceptance of such documentation or other traditional
documentation such as state-issued identifications or driver's licenses, the
actions of [U.S.] citizens abroad could be seriously restricted.
Jacobson,
cited in Bruno and Stones, 12.
.
15
Mutually recognized and accepted passports and consular identity cards facilitate
consular notification in the event that a person residing outside of his/her country is
detained, or in case of other emergency. Conversely, expressions of doubt about the
integrity of documents issued by a friendly country introduce a troublesome and

discordant element into bi-national or transnational relations.
III. PASSPORTS AND CONSULAR IDENTIFICATION CARDS ARE

RELIABLE PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION THAT WOULD ALLOW TEXAS TO
ENSURE THAT IT ONLY PROVIDES BIRTH CERTIFICATES TO THE
ACTUAL PARENTS OF CHILDREN BORN IN THE STATE
There is no rational reason for the Texas Department of Vital Statistics to refuse
to accept Mexican passports, with or without current visas, or Mexican consular
identification cards, as proof of identification for persons wishing to obtain their
children's birth certificates.

A. National passports are reliable recognized forms of personal identification.
National passports are recognized among nations with good standing diplomatic
relations, such as the U.S. and Mexico, in a mutual and reciprocated practice. Under the
International Convention on Civil Aviation, also known as the Chicago Convention, the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a specialized agency of the United
Nations, creates, maintains, and promotes Standards and Recommended Practices
(SARPS) related to civil aviation." Many of these have to do with the safe operation of
aircraft; Annex 9 pertains to "landside formalities for clearance of aircraft and
passengers, goods and mail with respect to the requirements of customs, immigration,
public health and agriculture authorities." International Civil Aviation Organization,
"The U.S. signed the Convention on Civil Avitation in1944 and ratified it in 1946.
Mexico deposited its ratification instrument with the United Nations on June 25, 1946.
16
http://www. icao. int/SecuritytFAL/Pages/Annex9.aspx, last accessed August 11, 2015.

Passports are covered by the SARPS for Machine Readable Travel Documents (MTRDs).
Mexican passports comply with these international technical standards.

Whether a passport has a current visa or not may have some bearing on a person's
immigration status; however, an expired visa only demonstrates the expiration of that
particular visa. What is more, the immigration status
valid or expired
of a person
does not diminish the integrity or usefulness of a passport as an identity document.

B. Mexican Consular identification cards ("Matriculas Consulares") are reliable
and secure forms of personal identification.
Mexico has issued consular identification cards, or MatrIculas, for about 144
years. U.S. General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters, "Border
Security: Consular Identification Accepted within United States, but Consistent Federal
Guidance Needed," 2004, p.S. Since 2000, the Government of Mexico has attempted to
ensure the integrity of these cards in a variety of ways, updating the matriculas
periodically to include the newest security features made possible by advances in

technology. Exhibit A in the Appendix, Affidavit of Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez, Consul
General of Mexico, details these security features. The cards would be extraordinarily
difficult to forge or to alter, given features including encrypted personal information not
visible to the naked eye, multiple colors of ink, holograms, colors that shift depending on
the angle at which the card is held or viewed, and high-quality photographs. In addition,
the identity information is maintained in a single, central database. For these reasons, it
is extremely unlikely that the Mexican consulate could accidentally issue duplicate
identity cards, or provide a consular ID to someone not eligible to receive it.
17
Respectfully Submitted
Virgia Marie Raymond

Counsel for Amicus Curiae,
The United Mexican States ("Mexico ")
State Bar of Texas No. 16617300
Law Office of Virginia Raymond
1006 East Csar Chavez Street
Austin, Texas 78702
512.472.6270 (office); 512.472.8263 (fax)
virginiaraymond(cIaustin.rr.corn
18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Virginia Marie Raymond, certify that I served a true and correct copy
of the
foregoing Brief of Amicus Curiae, the United Mexican States, in Support of Plaintiffs, on
the
day of
2.
-. , 2015, through first-class, pre-paid U.S. mail to the
parties at the following address6
Ken Paxton
Charles E. Roy
James E. Davis
Angela V. Colmenero
Thomas A Aibright
Office of the Attorney General
General Litigation Division
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Efrn C. Olivares
Senior Staff Attorney
South Texas Civil Rights Project
1017 W. Hackbeny Ave.
a
ltnjiQ!()l( Ltor
James C. Harrington
Director
Texas Civil Rights Project
1405 Montopolis Drive
Austin, Texas 78741
Jennifer K. Harbury
Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Inc. ichimail.utexas.edu
300 South Texas Boulevard
Weslaco, Texas 78596
L9,vtu9
Vir
Marie
virginiaraymondaustin.rr.com
19
Affidavit of Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez

My name is Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez. I was born on February 4th 1964 in
Mexico City, Mexico. I am over eighteen (18) years of age and competent to make the
following statement.
1. I
work for the Consulate General of Mexico in Austin, Texas. My title is
Consul General. I have held this position since May
1st,
2015. I was appointed by
President Enrique Pefla Nieto and the Mexican Senate ratified my appointment.
2. I am a career diplomat, member
of the Mexican Foreign Service since 1987. In
September of 2011, I was promoted to the rank of ambassador.

3. My responsibilities in this position, as set in Article 44
of Law of the Mexican
Foreign Service, include protecting the rights and promoting the interests of my fellow
Mexican nationals, always acting in accordance with international law. My duties also
include establishing and maintaining good relationships between Mexico and the
authorities of the consular jurisdiction.
4. Previous to my appointment as Consul General in Austin, I served for six years
as Consul General of Mexico in Sacramento, California. Before that, I was Executive
Director of the Institute for Mexicans Abroad at Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
Counselor for Latino Affairs at the Embassy of Mexico in Washington D.C. (1999-2003);
Director for Community Affairs at the Program for Mexican Communities Abroad (19951999); and Consul for Community Affairs at the Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles
(1989-1995).
20
5. I have a BA degree in International Relations from El Colegio de Mexico, and
a Masters Degree also in International Relations from the School
of International
Relations, University of Southern California.

6. The main responsibility
of consulates is to provide services, assistance, and
protection to nationals abroad. Mexican consulates issue secure, reliable, and tamper-
proof documents such as passports and Consular ID Cards.
Consular Identification Cards
7. I am familiar with the current and recent identification cards issued by the
Mexican Government that are called the Consular Identification card, Consular ID, or
MatrIcula Consular. People also use the less formal term "MatrIcula" to describe this
document. In this document, I use the terms "Consular ID" and "MatrIcula Consular"
interchangeably to mean this document issued by the Mexican government.

8.
My position requires me to understand the purpose of a Consular ID as well as
its security features.

9. My position also requires me to understand all
of the following:
a) How a person obtains a Consular ID;
b) The documentation that a person must present before she or he can
obtain a Consular ID;

c) The new security features on the Consular ID issued since November 3,
2014; and
d) The security features
of the Consular ID issued by the government of
Mexico between 2006 and November 2014.
21
10. The Consular Identification Card or MatrIcula Consular was created as
proof
of Mexican nationality and domicile abroad.

11. Mexican consulates issue the Consular ID after a rigorous process to confirm
the identity and residence of the bearer.

12. Consular ID Cards have no bearing whatsoever on a person's immigration
status.
13. The information contained in the IDs is centralized in a database that is useful
to locate Mexican nationals in case of emergency. This central database also prevents the
issuance of more than one Consular ID to the same person, when that person still
possesses a valid card.

14. In 2002, the Mexican Government created the green format of the Consular
ID card, and the Mexican consulates in the U.S. started to issue it in the same year. In
2006, the Mexican Government improved the security features of the Consular ID card in
the following ways: operation of a centralized database including biometrics, decoded

information of the bearer using bi-dimensional code bars and other methods used
according to international standards.

15. The Mexican Ministry
of Foreign Affairs is committed to creating documents
with the most advanced technological instruments available, and to improve the security
and reliability to benefit Mexican nationals.
16. In keeping with this commitment, on November 3rd, 2014, the fifty Mexican
consulates across the United States started issuing a new version of the Consular ID card,
which has additional security measures beyond those added in 2006.
22
17. During the revision
of the Consular ID, its creators carefully considered the
assembly process, production, and materials, with the aim of creating a durable and
useful card with a high quality photographic image.
18. After a long process, in the first
half of 2014, the Mexican Ministry of Foreign
Affairs presented the new Consular ID card.

19. The previous Consular ID, used between 2006 and 2014, included security
features such as visual and hidden security elements.

20. A centralized system supported the previous Consular ID in order to confirm
authenticity of documents and personal information, prevent duplicates, and link the
information to Mexican security databases.
21. The new Consular ID Card
issued since November 3, 2014
incorporates
several new security features such as encrypted data, including biometrics, of the
applicant.
22. The new Consular ID is printed on a plastic card (PET) with visible and
invisible marks.
23. The new Consular ID has a background design (Guilloche') with high quality
print and micro text frames.

24. The new Consular ID includes text with different colors of ink.
25. The new Consular ID includes embedded identity data on a Cryptographic
Chip.
26. The new Consular ID card features a photograph that is clearer than on past
versions.
27. The new Consular ID includes a laser engraved unique card number.
23
28. The new Consular ID Card is one of the most secure documents issued by the
Government of Mexico.
29. Mexican consular officers cannot issue a Consular ID to any applicant who
has a criminal record, is subject to prosecution, or faces a judicial or administrative

process in Mexico.
30. In order to obtain a Consular ID card, a person must go to a Mexican
Consulate and show original documentation for the following:

a) Proof of Mexican nationality;
b) Official proof of identity (from Mexico or the U.S.); and

c) Proof of address within the consular district for the Consulate where the
person is applying for a Consular ID.

31. There is a fee
of $27.00 USD.
32. The Consular Identification Card is issued in accordance to Mexican privacy
laws (Access to Information Law, 2002) and to international legal instruments subscribed
by Mexico and the United States (Vienna Convention of Consular Relations, 1963).
33. This Consular ID is recognized as proof of identity by many banks and
financial institutions.
34. I attach, as Exhibit
Al, a two-page document entitled "The Mexican Consular
ID Card: Secure and Reliable Identification for Mexicans Abroad," which provides an
accurate summary of the security features of the current and immediately previous
versions of the Consular ID issued by the Mexican government.
Passports
35. I am familiar with passports issued by the Mexican government.
36. My position requires me to understand the purpose of Mexican passports as
well as their security features.

37. My position also requires me to understand all
of the following:
a) How a person obtains a Mexican passport;
b) The documentation that a person must present before she or he can
obtain a particular kind of Mexican passport;

c) The security features on Mexican passports;
d) The different kinds of Mexican passports.

38. Mexico began to issue passports at a federal level in 1971. The Ministry of
Foreign Affairs is responsible for the issuance of passports.

39. In October 2000, the Mexican passport was modernized to comply with the
international standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

contained in Document 9303 regarding technical specifications for Machine Readable
Travel Documents (MTRDs), including Machine Readable Passports (MRPs).
40. Also in October 2000, Mexico instituted an automatized and computerized
process to issue passports and maintain the data on all passports.

41. The Mexican government issues three kinds of passports: ordinary, official
and diplomatic passports.
25
42. Ordinary passports are issued to any Mexican national who meets the
following requirements, as established in the Regulations on passports and travel identity
document.
a) An applicant must appear in person at an office
of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs or Consular office;

b) An applicant must present proof of her or his Mexican nationality with
the original or certified copy of the accepted documentation. A Mexican Birth Certificate
is acceptable proof
c) An applicant must present proof of the his or her identity with an
original official photo identification such as a voter identification, identity card of the
National Military Service, or a professional card; and
d) An applicant must pay the appropriate fee.
43. Mexican Embassies and Consulates around the world issue ordinary passports
type "E", with security features that include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) A digital photograph of the passport holder;
b) The holder's signature;
c) A "ghost" photograph of the holder;
d) The signature of the Consul at the issuing office;

e) Changes of font type; and
PDF417 Code (more commonly known as "bar code")

44. Within Mexico, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issue the ordinary digital
passports type "G", with security measures that contain thirty-eight security measures
that include:
26
a) A digital photograph of the holder;
b) The holder's signature;

c) A "ghost" photograph of the holder;
d) UV elements;
e) Infrared elements; and
f) The passport number drilled through all the pages
of the passport.
45. Mexico maintains a national database containing all of the information on all
passports issued by the Mexican government.
/Ao
CARLO S GONZALEZ GUTIERREZ
COUNTY OF TRAVIS:
STATE OF TEXAS:
On the
24
day of
,2015, appeared Carlos Gonzalez

co
Gutierrez, known to me or identified with
cJ:
4esitt1r
o%O
423 - 55 ,and being duly
sworn, affirmed that the foregoing statement is within his personal knowledge and true
and correct, to the best of his knowledge.
tlfI&
PRINTED NAME OF N TARY
Ib((l6
...
LORCAS BEATRIZ ARANM
NOTARY PUBLIC
Z'
)\.%//i
State of Texas
SIGNATURE OF
OTARY
Cornm.Exp.O6-112O1
Notary Public in and for

the State of Texas
27
T1
THE MEXICAN CONSULAR ID CARD

SECURE AND RELIABLE IDENTIFICATION FOR MEXICANS ABROAD
*
An instrument to assist Mexican citizens

The Consular Identification Card known as MatrIcula
Consular was created as proof of Mexican nationality
and foreign address. It is issued by Mexican consulates
after a rigorous process to confirm the identity and
resi ence 01 uie uearer.
.0
',
1..
The main responsibility of consulates is to

provide services, assistance, and protection
to nationals abroad. This is a foreign policy
priority for the Government of Mexico.
Mexican consulates implement preventive
protection and communication strategies to
promote the full respect of the rights of
Mexican nationals. They work with local
authorities and other partners to help build
long lasting relationships at the local level.
Mexican consulates issue secure, reliable and

tamper proof documents such as passports
and Consular ID Cards.
reliable and widely accepted
ID
The Consular Identification Card is issued in
accordance to Mexican privacy laws (Access
to Information Law, 2002) and to
international legal instruments subscribed by
Mexico and the United States (Vienna
Convention of Consular Relations, 1963).
This document is recognized as a proof of

identity by numerous banks and financial
institutions, and by Mexican and US
authorities, at the federal, state and local
levels.
Consular ID Cards have no bearing

whatsoever on a person's immigration status.
,,t
The information contained in the IDs is

centralized in a database that is useful to
locate Mexican nationals in case of
-*
p.
emergency.
--
-t
-,
-t
.-
tt
I.
t,
.tt
SRF
-_-
closer look at the Consular Identification Card
Photograph
Security
laminate
cancefled
with
Advantage
technology
i:L
-.
S RE
ultraviolet
logos
wI
1C
175O5
Consular
ixed
Scrambled
Indicia
Foated
Supphes
Micro Lines
High security lines design
Scrambled
*4
SRE
Indicla fixed
textand
graphics
printed on
both sides of
thateslin
blanks
STATEMENT OF IMMUNITY
notice of violation may be issued
2000150305
X4AOF137EC
AT ALL OTHER TIMES
LAW ENFORCEMENT INQUIRIES
Washington. DC. 20522-3302

Return postage guaranteed
IF FOUND, MAIL TO:

SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO
U.S. Department of State
(202) 647-1 985 FROM 8AM TO 5PM Office of the Chief of Protocol
AND
EASTERN TIME
(571)345-3146 5A-33 2nd Floor
The bearer shall be treated with due respect and
This person has beeS duly recognized by the Department of State and under international law shall not be amenable to jurisdiction with respect to acts performed in
the exercise of consular functions. This form of immunity must be asserted before,
and proven to, the appropriatejudicial authorities. The bearer shall not be liable to
arrest or detention pending trixl except on a warrant for a felony offense.
SEEREVERSE SIDE FOR
AUSTIN, TX
Title:
DOB:02/04/1 964
GONZALEZ GUTIERREZ,
CARLOS
Name:
CONSULATE
IMEXICO
Mission:
CONSULAR IDENTIRCATION CARD

eio#3010-4293-55 EApiros:05/31/2018

26 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

26 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 26-2 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 36

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Maria Isabel Perales Serna on her own behalf

Texas Department of State Health Services,

BRIEF OF THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES ("MEXICO")

EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 26-2 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 36

IDENTITY. INTEREST. AND AUTHORITY OF AMICUS CURIAE

II. INTERESTS AND SOURCES OF AUTHORITY

PART I. THE DENIAL OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES TO U.S. CITIZENS VIOLATES THE

B. THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DENIAL OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES CREATES A CASTE OF UNDOCUMENTED

D. THE DENIAL OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES TO U.S. CITIZEN CHILDREN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY

PART II. DIPLOMATIC CONSIDERATIONS

III. PASSPORTS AND CONSULAR IDENTIFICATION CARDS ARE RELIABLE PROOF OF

A. NATIONAL PASSPORTS ARE RELIABLE RECOGNIZED FORMS OF PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION.

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 26-2 Filed 08/24/15 Page 3 of 36

B. MEXICAN CONSULAR IDENTIFICATION CARDS ("MATRiCULAS CONSULARES") ARE

APPENDIX - AFFIDAVIT OF CARLOS GONZALEZ GUTIERREZ

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 26-2 Filed 08/24/15 Page 4 of 36

ratification/accession 1992), Article 7 and Article 24, paragraph 2

Nuremberg Code (1947)

America and the United Mexican States Concluded at Guadalupe Hidalgo,

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 26-2 Filed 08/24/15 Page 5 of 36

Rusk, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)

Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)

Plata, 563 U.S. _____;

131 5. Ct, 1910 (2011)

Cleveland Board ofEducation v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1973)

Hal/v. Florida, 572 U.S. _____, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014)

Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954)

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S.

MedellIn v. Texas, 552 U.S.

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S.

(2012), 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)

Perez v. Brownwell, 356 U.S. 254 (1967)

Society ofSisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. 158 (1944)

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 26-2 Filed 08/24/15 Page 6 of 36

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)

Windsor, 570 U.S. _______, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013)

Implications, the Mexican Case, and Related Legislation, Library of Congress,

July 24, 2015

accessed July 24, 2015

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 26-2 Filed 08/24/15 Page 7 of 36

IDENTITY, INTEREST, AND AUTHORITY OF AMICUS CURIAE

The United Mexican States (hereinafter, "Mexico") is a sovereign nation. Mexico

files this brief through undersigned counsel.1

II. Interests and sources of authority

America (hereinafter, "U.S.") and individual U.S. states. The aforementioned is

Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides that

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 26-2 Filed 08/24/15 Page 8 of 36

the functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in

consular functions. Relevant provisions of Article

specify following responsibilities:

permitted by international law;..

Case 1:15-cv-00446-RP Document 26-2 Filed 08/24/15 Page 9 of 36

emphatically agrees with the claims made by Plaintiffs.

protect the integrity of U.S. birth certificates.

PART I. THE DENIAL OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES TO U.S. CITIZENS

'[V}isting. . condemnation on the head of an infant' for the misdeeds of

As explained below, the actions of the