Akron Law Review, Vol. 57 [2025], Iss. 1, Art. 2 74 B. AKRON LAW R EVIEW [57:49 Birth Registration and Federalism The federal government governs immigration and nationality law, superseding state authority: this is the plenary power doctrine. 144 But the federal-state system of birth registration is not accounted for in current theories of cooperative federalism or immigration federalism. A recent article about delayed birth certificates called for greater theorization of cooperative federalism to account for the federal-state system of issuing birth certificates to document citizenship. 145 This Section will argue that the U.S. birth registration system demonstrates two concepts. First, it demonstrates a new understanding of citizenship federalism, in which a person’s access to the rights of citizenship can turn on their treatment under state law. Second, it demonstrates dual-concurrence federalism: a situation in which a person must have favorable adjudications from both the state and federal government to receive a benefit, in which neither federal nor state governments can, in practice, unilaterally guarantee access to that benefit. Previous scholarship has extensively explored the concept of immigration federalism, which is the impact of state and local law on noncitizens’ access to immigration benefits or vulnerability to immigration enforcement. 146 State and local law can impact noncitizens’ access to immigration benefits; as one example, noncitizens seeking special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) must receive a state court adjudication of their status to receive federal immigration benefit.147 Federal immigration law defining crimes that lead to removal and deportation include crimes defined by state law. 148 Increasingly, states seek to participate in—or to shield noncitizens from—immigration enforcement. 149 The concept of citizenship builds on immigration federalism and points to the impact of state and local law on the ability of a noncitizen to access other rights of citizenship like property rights and parental rights. 150 144. See generally Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889); see also David A. Martin, Why Immigration’s Plenary Power Doctrine Endures, 68 OKLA. L. R EV. 29 (2015). 145. Remus, supra note 10, at 229 (noting that “existing theories fail to address federal-state coordination on delayed birth certificate issuance and recognition.”). 146. Motomura, supra note 11, at 1 (defining immigration federalism); Rodríguez, supra note 11, at 569; Elias, supra note 11. 147. Shani M. King & Nicole S. Hall, Cooperative Federalism and SIJS, 61 B.C. L. R EV. 2869, 2872-73 (2020). 148. States’ Commandeered Convictions: Why States Should Get a Veto Over Crime-Based Deportation, 132 HARV. L. R EV 2322, 2327 (2019). 149. Juliet P. Stumpf, States of Confusion: The Rise of State and Local Power over Immigration, 86 N.C. L. R EV. 1557, 1596–1597 (2008); Motomura, supra note 11, at 1365–69. 150. Chertoff, supra note 11. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol57/iss1/2 26