Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
* Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
Supreme Court ruling causes confusion over birthright citizenship
*
Lawyers and advocates field calls from anxious clients
*
Uncertainty remains on policy across different states
By Ted Hesson and Kristina Cooke
WASHINGTON, - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status.
Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried.
"There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well."
She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality.
"I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship.
If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute.
"Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said.
The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth.
"Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday.
WORRIED CALLS
Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling.
They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state.
Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights.
"He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said.
Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship.
"It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic."
Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear.
Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born.
"I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety.
Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order.
"She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?"
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Birthright citizenship case: What US Supreme Court ruling means for immigrants
The legal fight over Donald Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship isn't over yet. The Associated Press reported that while the Supreme Court gave his administration a win by cutting back on nationwide injunctions, the bigger question surrounding the legality of the policy still hasn't been answered. Trump's birthright citizenship policy faces ongoing legal challenges after the Supreme Court's recent ruling.(Getty Images via AFP) Also Read: Bezos-Sanchez wedding: Newlyweds break cover as they leave Venice hotel, head for breakfast in Harry's Bar The birthright citizenship basically means that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen, no matter who your parents are or where they came from. Birthright citizenship is written into the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The policy was added after the Civil War to make sure African Americans, especially former slaves, were given full rights. The rule has been tested before. Back in 1898, a man named Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants. He went overseas, but when he tried to come home, the government refused to let him back in. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The justices sided with him, saying that anyone born in the US - even to non-citizen parents - is a citizen. Also read: Jennifer Aniston wants to revisit this past project. Hint: It's not Friends Donald Trump's push to end birthright citizenship Trump has called birthright citizenship a draw for illegal immigration. In January, he signed an executive order trying to stop citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporary residents. But several federal judges blocked the order. Judge John Coughenour in Seattle said, 'This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.' Another judge, Deborah Boardman, wrote that no court has ever supported Trump's view, the Associated Press reported. Trump's legal team argued that the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment allow the government to deny citizenship in these cases. The Supreme Court didn't weigh in on that. It only ruled on how far a single judge's decision can go. What will happen next? The executive order is still blocked. The case returns to lower courts, which now have 30 days to figure out what to do under the new rules. Two class-action lawsuits were filed right after the ruling, one in Maryland and another in New Hampshire. Immigration groups hope these lawsuits can still block Trump's order across the country. But legal experts say that path won't be easy. According to the Associated Press, Professor Suzette Malveaux said class actions face several obstacles. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, told lower courts to move fast so the issue can reach the top court again. Advocates are worried that without nationwide protection, states could start following different rules. That could lead to confusion and legal chaos. FAQs What is the difference between a birthright citizen and a naturalized citizen? A birthright citizen is born in the US, while a naturalized citizen is someone who becomes a citizen later through legal processes. Did the Supreme Court rule on birthright citizenship? No, the Supreme Court did not rule on the policy itself - only on the limits of nationwide court injunctions. Do babies born in the USA automatically get citizenship? Yes, most babies born on US soil are granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' immigration status. What are the qualifications for birthright citizenship? To qualify, a person must be born in the US and not fall under limited exceptions like children of foreign diplomats.
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Transgender rights & transforming society
The school years were hell, Kalki Subramaniam remembers. Labelled a boy at birth, she didn't 'fit into her body' and just looking at herself in the mirror was an ordeal. In addition, there was relentless bullying by the other kids because she was too 'feminine'. Just going to the boys' loo was torture. So little is known about gender identity, and so much is feared through tropes. (Hindustan Times) And, yet, says Kalki, she was one of the lucky ones who didn't have to run away from home, who didn't have to turn to begging or sex work and risk getting HIV/AIDS. She made a pact with her family to transition only after her two sisters were married. And she continued her education — a Masters' degree through distance education — and is today the author of four books, two in Tamil and two in English; the latest out this past week. To read We Will Not Be Erased: The Courage to Rise Above Hate, a collection of Kalki's poems, notes, illustrations and what she calls, 'very short stories', is to ride alongside a journey of despair and discovery, rejection and redemption. 'I have my own dark moments,' she said at an audience interaction organised by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and the Keshav Suri Foundation in New Delhi. 'But if I give up, it will affect not only my family, but my community.' And, so, she chooses hope. The book comes at a time when transgender rights globally are under threat. US President Donald Trump's government now recognises only two genders, male and female. Transwomen athletes cannot participate in women's sport. And this past week, the conservative-majority Supreme Court upheld a ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors. The UK Supreme Court has ruled there are only two genders for the purposes of the Equality Act. Hungary has banned the Pride Parade. Russia has banned legal gender change. And, in February this year, Argentinian president Javier Milei barred access to legal gender recognition for minors. India has its silver linings. The 2014 NALSA judgment recognised a third gender. Every citizen has the right to self-identify with whichever gender is best suited to them. Recent rulings from various high courts have generally been progressive — the right to be known as parents rather than father and mother on their child's birth certificate (Kerala), the right of a transgender woman to file a complaint of cruelty against her husband and in-laws (Andhra Pradesh), and the right to form a chosen family (Madras). And, yet, even the Supreme Court fell short on issues like adoption and marriage rights for the LGBTQI+ community. Other disparities are glaring. For instance, the punishment for raping a transgender person is at most two years. And a Supreme Court recommendation for equal opportunities for education and employment remains largely on paper. Even something as basic as a head count of transgender citizens is fuzzy. Census 2011's calculation of 4.88 lakh is believed to be a gross underestimation. All of these are challenges, but for Kalki, the biggest is visibility. So little is known about gender identity, and so much is feared through tropes (no, transgender people do not go about kidnapping transgender children). 'Our education system does not teach us to empathise with people beyond religion, caste and borders,' she tells me on the phone from Chennai. And, so, we fear what we do not know. Perhaps because it's Pride Month, there has been greater space for transgender issues. On Amazon Prime, In Transit, directed by Ayesha Sood and produced by Zoya Akhtar and Reema Kagti documents the lives of transgender and non-binary people through questions of identity, love, acceptance and belonging. Like Kalki's book, it is a story of hope. Like the book, it gives the transgender community a voice — one that we need to hear. Namita Bhandare writes on gender. The views expressed are personal.
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Clearing the fog on the state of India-US relations
'The administration is bullish on India' is how a senior US official put it to me last week in Washington D.C. This sentiment would seem at odds with the broader reporting on the US-India relationship. In a Financial Times newsletter on India, one writer argued that the Indian Prime Minister (PM) 'made the mistake of counting on his warm personal connection with Trump'. The general assertion being that the Indian government has mortgaged this crucial relationship to 'personal friendships' alone. Others suggest that the US President's recent luncheon with Asim Munir, the recently decorated Pakistani Field Marshal, and his 'sneaky attempt' to bring PM Narendra Modi and Munir into the same room in the White House is 'threatening the future of US-India partnership'. Structures like TRUST were created for top political leaders to monitor progress on crucial initiatives. (REUTERS) Between social media and popular reporting, it would seem as though this relationship has been iced. Yet, in meetings with over 30 officials, experts, think tankers, and industry representatives last week, the story that emerged was diametrically opposed to the one that has been paraphrased above. Modi's engagements with Trump matter more than it is perhaps realised. It clearly provides a political basis of what can be achieved between the two countries, even at this time of shrinking administrative capacities in the US, and the many unplanned shifts in the bureaucratic body politic. To be sure, you could start the week with a meeting with official X and end up receiving a phone call from his/her successor the next day. Yet, what was clear to me was that the vision laid out by the two leaders in a lengthy joint statement following PM Modi's meeting with President Trump in February, guides the different contours of the relationship at the functional level. Notwithstanding the game of political catch between outlandish tweets and measured official responses, the guidelines for those moving the relationship across government and the private sector are more or less clear. First, there is a concerted effort to realise outcomes in the strategic technology partnership between the two sides. Under the banner of TRUST (Transforming the Relationship Utilising Strategic Technology), the administrative State and technology companies between the two countries are working towards outcomes to do more on pharmaceuticals with the view to de-risk the production of key ingredients from China; fuse infrastructure partnerships between firms invested in the present and the future of Artificial Intelligence (AI); and actively looking for ways to cooperate on extracting and processing critical minerals. The latter needs work, but the zest to find the right compact is real. Second, American private sector actors are preparing the ground to sell different kinds of reactors to meet India's nuclear energy needs. They are, at this time, hoping that the proposed legislative changes to the Indian Civil Nuclear Liability Act 2010 streamline liability clauses in consonance with global standards — delinking liabilities on suppliers and operators. Further, they remain hopeful that changes to India's Atomic Energy Act would allow private sector participation to meet India's nuclear energy needs. This is a top priority for the White House and the US President. This was made clear in several exchanges. This is 'unfinished business' following the conclusion of the 2008 US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, as one Washington insider put it. My own sense is that progress on this front is almost as important as the conclusion of the first tranche of the trade deal between the two countries. The first tranche of this deal needs to be completed by July 9, when the US President's 90-day pause on 'reciprocal tariffs' ends. Officials suggested that there is a fair chance that the first tranche of the deal with India will be completed by this deadline. 'The trickier parts will come later,' they made plain. Third, efforts across bureaucracies in Washington D.C. that deal with India are almost uniformly focussed on the Quad Leader's Summit in October or November, which provides an opportunity for another bilateral between the two leaders. 'Deliverables' is the name of the game. Yet, at least some of the deliverables need to be real. The ongoing process is less about padding a joint statement and more about searching for right-sized deals. There is a fire in the system to make something happen by the time the leaders meet, including a considerable push to realise new AI infrastructure partnerships. 'India and Brazil are the two most important countries for the US when it comes to data centres,' as one technocrat stated. 'We need to get this right on both sides', the official made plain. In the US, this would mean producing revised rules for export controls that make it easier to access chips from the US into India. In turn, India will possibly need to negotiate certain guarantees to make sure that the chips are not off-shored. Moreover, there is a significant push to deregulate the data centre market in India, and streamline processes to encourage the expansion of AI infrastructure in India. None of this will be easy. Deregulation takes time. Negotiating guarantees can be cumbersome and is a process that cuts across several administrative buildings in and across New Delhi and other Indian states. If Indian officials conclude that data centre investments are an advantage for India, this is the bureaucratic work that will be required to realise this unique moment. It is exactly why structures like TRUST were created, for top political leaders to monitor progress on crucial initiatives. The enthusiasm for investments and partnerships will not last long. This also might be kept in mind. This is a zero-sum play. In sum, while there is little doubt that Munir, Pakistan, Twitter exchanges, and the politics that shape these expressions and incidents to an extent inform the current state of US-India ties, at times exercising officials on both sides, it is also plainly clear that the functional relationship — which produces material results — is one that is working to produce outcomes, and not without the direction of the political leadership. Rudra Chaudhuri is director, Carnegie India. The views expressed are personal.
