There is a small, but legally significant, subset of persons born in the U.S. who are not U.S. citizens. Therefore, a claim of birth in the U.S. is insufficient to establish an allegation of making a false claim to U.S. citizenship, unless DHS can allege and prove that in the particular case, the same benefits could not have been obtained by someone born in the U.S. but who was nevertheless not a U.S. citizen. Thanks to David Link.

Light, et al., Citizenship and Punishment: The Salience of National Membership in U.S. Criminal Courts, American Sociological Review 2014 79: 825, 835 (Compared to U.S. citizens, noncitizen offenders are over four times more likely to be incarcerated, and this effect is larger than the effects for race, ethnicity, gender, age, education, being convicted at trial, and any of the offense types.) (emphasis in original).
http://asr.sagepub.com/content/79/5/825

The following authorities may be of use in analyzing inadmissibility based on a claim that the Government has reason to believe respondent was an illicit trafficker in a controlled substance, under INA 212(a)(2)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C)(i).

If immigration officials have reason to believe that a noncitizen has ever assisted in drug trafficking or been a drug trafficker, the person is inadmissible (but not deportable). INA 212(a)(2)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C.

The October, 2014 issue of VOICE includes an article concerning alcohol abuse and waivers of inadmissibility. http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=50326

Gary Mead ICE Memorandum on strategic use of expedited removal.
http://www.dhs.gov/news/2011/05/24/statement-gary-mead-executive-associa...

Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 1999). The requisite "reason to believe" that allows the INS to claim a respondent is subject to the mandatory detention for purposes of the automatic stay is not sufficient for the merits of the bond appeal. Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 660 (BIA 1999), clarified.

Matter of Bett, 26 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 2014) (form I-9, employment eligibility verification, is admissible in removal proceedings to establish removability for false claim of U.S. citizenship, under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)).

Castaneda v. Souza, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (1st Cir. Oct. 30, 2014) (Because INA 236(c), 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) only applies to aliens detained when . . . released from criminal custody, and because the petitioners were not timely detained under any reasonable interpretation of the statute [they were each arrested by ICE over four years after release], we conclude that the petitioners are not subject to mandatory detention under 1226(c) and are entitled to an individualized bail hearing under 1226(a).

Castaneda v. Souza, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2014 WL 4976140 (1st Cir. Oct. 30, 2014) (Avoidance of constitutional doubt is a cardinal principle of statutory interpretation. Zadvydas, 533U.S. at 689 (quoting Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62, (1932) (internal quotation marks omitted)). As the Supreme Court has explained countless times, when an Act of Congress raises a serious doubt as to its constitutionality, this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided. Id. (quoting Crowell, 285U.S.

Castaneda v. Souza, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2014 WL 4976140 (1st Cir. Oct. 30, 2014) (Since Justice Kennedys vote was necessary to the majority, his limiting rationale is binding on us.4 fn4 See Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 633 F.2d 583, 594-95 (1st Cir. 1980) (construing the Supreme Courts 5-4 decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), to be limited by the concurring opinion of Justice Powell); accord, e.g., United States v. Smith, 135 F.3d 963, 968-69 (5th Cir. 1998); see also United States v. District of Columbia, 654 F.2d 802, 806-07 (D.C. Cir.