*815 ORDER AND JUDGMENT *****

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellants are 1,375 minor United States citizen children whose parents are undocumented aliens residing illegally in the United States. Sandra Rodrigues, a resident alien, brought this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), on their behalf claiming that defendants’ enforcement of the immigration laws against the children’s parents has violated or will violate the children’s rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and denied leave to amend. The district court also denied appellants’ motion to alter or amend the judgment. They appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. Gohier v. Enright, 186 F.3d 1216, 1218 (10th Cir. 1999). We find no error. The law is clear that “the incidental impact visited upon the children of deportable, illegal aliens does not raise constitutional problems.” Delgado v. INS, 637 F.2d 762, 764 (10th Cir. 1980). The district court correctly relied on Delgaclo in dismissing appellants’ case for failure to state a claim. We therefore affirm for substantially the same reasons as those set out in the district court’s order filed on April 12, 2000.

AFFIRMED.