Can babies be stateless in the US? What the Supreme Court's ruling means for birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court has permitted President Trump's order on birthright citizenship to advance in 28 states. A 30-day delay is in place. Legal challenges are ongoing. States like California and New York are exempt for now. Class-action lawsuits are being pursued. Experts warn of potential statelessness for some children. Mixed-status families may face complications.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
What the Supreme Court's Decision Means for Birthright Citizenship
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
In a key decision, the Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders to proceed in 28 states. While the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the order, it struck down nationwide injunctions that had blocked its enforcement. A 30-day delay has been set before the order takes effect, giving legal challengers time to regroup.States including California, New York, and Maryland—part of a group of 22 states that had sued the federal government—will not see immediate enforcement due to existing court blocks. Lawyers representing those states are now moving quickly to convert their cases into class-action lawsuits to preserve broader protections.Stephen Yale-Loehr, immigration scholar at Cornell Law School, said as told to The New York Times:'The court decision today means that unless a court certifies a class action within the next 30 days, the Trump administration can start to implement its repeal of birthright citizenship.'With the 30-day window now active, immigration lawyers and civil rights groups are racing to block enforcement before it begins. The constitutional question of who qualifies as an American citizen remains unresolved and is likely headed for another round in the courts.No. The court imposed a 30-day delay. The order may be implemented only in the 28 states that did not file legal challenges. In states that did, earlier court rulings remain in place, pending further litigation.Challengers have filed for class-action status, which would allow affected individuals across all states to be represented collectively. The Supreme Court left open this legal path. Federal judges will need to certify these classes quickly for them to have legal standing.Tianna Mays, legal director at Democracy Defenders Fund, said to The New York Times:'The Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship, and no procedural ruling will stop us from fighting to uphold that promise.'Yes. In enforcement states, babies born to undocumented immigrants may not receive US citizenship. While many will inherit citizenship from their parents' home countries, some may not, depending on each country's nationality laws.Experts say deportation would depend on the parents' immigration status. Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at Yale Law School, told The New York Times:'What will matter is the status of the parents, in which case there is no bar for removing the babies along with parents.'Under the executive order, children born to individuals on temporary visas—such as H-1B workers or student visa holders—would not automatically receive citizenship. These children may inherit temporary status but would lack the rights tied to citizenship.Rodriguez added:'They just won't get birth certificates.'Children born during enforcement might gain retroactive citizenship if courts eventually invalidate the order. However, this would require a formal process and could delay access to healthcare, education, and legal documentation.Rodriguez warned:'Practically, it could be a gigantic hassle, and there could be significant consequences.'If a family has children born before and after the order, citizenship status could differ among siblings. This may lead to complications in accessing benefits or remaining in the country.Yale-Loehr told The New York Times:'The practical problems of ending birthright citizenship are both huge and unpredictable.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
18 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
India-US trade talks need political push for final leg
The fine print of a preliminary trade deal between India and the US has mostly been worked out by negotiators from both sides but the ball is now in the court of the political leadership to break a stalemate, people aware of the parleys told HT, disclosing two of the topmost sticking points that remain. Trade experts said an interim trade deal between India and the US is possible by July 9, provided both respect practical and political sensitivities of each other. (AFP File) According to these people, these issues are: an unequivocal assurance that New Delhi seeks from Washington that all punitive levies will be repealed, and a freer access to India's politically sensitive agriculture sector that the American side has sought. 'The two-day deliberation that started in Washington on Thursday will likely stretch over to next week,' one of these people, who has direct knowledge of the talks, told HT. Both sides are in a sprint to announce a breakthrough, which will be a preliminary deal covering some portion of the trade between two nations, with a larger bilateral trade deal expected to be signed by October. Once the deal is done, India wants America to withdraw all existing and potential retaliatory tariffs, including the 26% reciprocal tariff — this comprises a 10% baseline tariff imposed from April 5 and an additional 16% country-specific levy set to trigger from July 9. India also wants the US to revoke all safeguard duties disputed at the World Trade Organisation—50% on Indian steel and aluminium and 25% on automobiles and auto parts—and to reciprocate New Delhi's move by proportionately slashing its most favoured nation tariffs. 'Washington has not yet given any unequivocal commitment on these matters, which are crucial for Indian interests,' another person said. American negotiators have been suggesting India replicate the US-UK Economic Prosperity Deal model, where Britain accepted continued 10% baseline tariffs on most goods while securing relief from additional sectoral tariffs. However, Indian negotiators have rejected this approach. The other sticking point is the US insistence on India opening its agriculture and farming sector. While the American side is open to tariff rate quotas (TRQ) — a mechanism under which concessional duty or duty-free access of any specified item applies to a limited quantity — their insistence on some sensitive sectors is a challenge. 'The problem lies in wanting India to also open its sensitive sectors. Dairy imports are restricted for two reasons. First, India's dairy farming is at a subsistence level with one or two cows or buffaloes. The livelihoods of millions of farmers are at stake as they could not compete with America's commercial-scale dairy farms. Secondly, the US cattle feed includes non-vegetarian products, something against religious sentiments of Indian consumers,' a third person said. Similarly, India is unable to accept the US demand to allow unrestricted access to American agricultural items such as corn and soybean because Indian law does not permit genetically modified crops. 'America is unwilling to accept an institutional mechanism which would certify that its India-bound agriculture produce are not genetically modified, saying there is a practical problem in segregating GM and non-GM products,' this person said. This person added that solving such issues now require a political directive from the highest levels of the government. 'While majority of issues have been resolved with near consensus, including on removing tariff and non-tariff barriers on most of the items of interest for both countries, certain sensitive matters require political directives from the two leaders. An interim India-US trade deal, mainly involving goods, is possible to conclude before July 9, depending on political resolution of the stalemate,' the second person said. The Indian negotiating team could extend its stay in Washington next week and the two parties would discuss contentious issues, depending on any political directive, according to the first person. The Indian negotiating team led by chief negotiator and special secretary-commerce Rajesh Agrawal was still in Washington on Saturday, indicating that talks may extend into next week. Trade experts said an interim trade deal between India and the US is possible by July 9, provided both respect practical and political sensitivities of each other. Global Trade Research Initiative founder Ajay Srivastava outlined a likely scenario: 'The more likely outcome is a limited trade pact—styled after the US-UK mini trade deal announced on May 8. Under such a deal, India is expected to cut MFN tariffs on a wide range of industrial goods, including automobiles, a persistent demand from Washington. In agriculture, India may offer limited market access through tariff reductions and TRQs on select US products such as ethanol, almonds, walnuts, apples, raisins, avocados, olive oil, spirits, and wine.' 'However, India is unlikely to budge on sensitive sectors. No tariff cuts are expected for dairy products or key food grains like rice and wheat, where farm livelihoods are at stake. These categories are politically and economically sensitive, affecting over 700 million people in India's rural economy,' he added. Srivastava warned that 'the talks may collapse' if the US continues to insist on opening India's core agriculture sectors or allowing entry of GM products. The prudent move for Washington would be to respect Indian sensitivities and forge a deal for stronger strategic cooperation in future, he said, noting that 'agricultural goods account for less than 5% of US exports to India.' Another expert working in a multinational consulting firm said: 'Now it is the time for America to act as India has already given several concessions, making its intent clear for stronger and everlasting economic cooperation with the US.' After a week where tariffs took a back seat to the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and the massive tax and spending bill in the US Congress, the Trump administration's trade negotiations have picked up. News agency Reuters reported Washington had sent a new proposal to the EU on Thursday and held talks with Japan on Friday. Both India and Japan are in advanced negotiations.
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
What's in the latest version of Trump's big bill now before US Senate
At some 940-pages, the legislation is a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts and other Republican priorities, including new money for national defense and deportations. Now it's up to Congress to decide whether President Donald Trump's signature's domestic policy package will become law. US Senators were working through the weekend to pass the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' and send it back to the House for a final vote. (Getty Images via AFP) Trump told Republicans, who hold majority power in the House and Senate, to skip their holiday vacations and deliver the bill by the Fourth of July. Senators were working through the weekend to pass the bill and send it back to the House for a final vote. Democrats are united against it. Here's the latest on what's in the bill. There could be changes as lawmakers negotiate. Tax cuts are the priority Republicans say the bill is crucial because there would be a massive tax increase after December when tax breaks from Trump's first term expire. The legislation contains roughly $3.8 trillion in tax cuts. The existing tax rates and brackets would become permanent under the bill. It temporarily would add new tax breaks that Trump campaigned on: no taxes on tips, overtime pay or some automotive loans, along with a bigger $6,000 deduction in the Senate draft for older adults who earn no more than $75,000 a year. It would boost the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,200 under the Senate proposal. Families at lower income levels would not see the full amount. A cap on state and local deductions, called SALT, would quadruple to $40,000 for five years. It's a provision important to New York and other high tax states, though the House wanted it to last for 10 years. There are scores of business-related tax cuts. The wealthiest households would see a $12,000 increase from the legislation, which would cost the poorest people $1,600 a year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House's version. Middle-income taxpayers would see a tax break of $500 to $1,500, the CBO said. Money for deportations, a border wall and the Golden Dome The bill would provide some $350 billion for Trump's border and national security agenda, including $46 billion for the U.S.-Mexico border wall and $45 billion for 100,000 migrant detention facility beds, as he aims to fulfill his promise of the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history. Money would go for hiring 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, with $10,000 signing bonuses and a surge of Border Patrol officers, as well. The goal is to deport some 1 million people per year. The homeland security secretary would have a new $10 billion fund for grants for states that help with federal immigration enforcement and deportation actions. The attorney general would have $3.5 billion for a similar fund, known as Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide, or BIDEN, referring to former Democratic President Joe Biden. To help pay for it all, immigrants would face various new fees, including when seeking asylum protections. For the Pentagon, the bill would provide billions for ship building, munitions systems, and quality of life measures for servicemen and women, as well as $25 billion for the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system. The Defense Department would have $1 billion for border security. How to pay for it? Cuts to Medicaid and other programs To help partly offset the lost tax revenue and new spending, Republicans aim to cut back some long-running government programs: Medicaid, food stamps, green energy incentives and others. It's essentially unraveling the accomplishments of the past two Democratic presidents, Biden and Barack Obama. Republicans argue they are trying to rightsize the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse. The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and food stamps, including older people up to age 65. Parents of children 14 and older would have to meet the program's work requirements. There's also a proposed new $35 co-payment that can be charged to patients using Medicaid services. Some 80 million people rely on Medicaid, which expanded under Obama's Affordable Care Act, and 40 million use the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. Most already work, according to analysts. All told, the CBO estimates that under the House-passed bill, at least 10.9 million more people would go without health coverage and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps. The Senate proposes a $25 billion Rural Hospital Transformation Program to help offset reduced Medicaid dollars. It's a new addition, intended to win over holdout GOP senators and a coalition of House Republicans warning that the proposed Medicaid provider tax cuts would hurt rural hospitals. Both the House and Senate bills propose a dramatic rollback of the Biden-era green energy tax breaks for electric vehicles. They also would phase out or terminate the various production and investment tax credits companies use to stand up wind, solar and other renewable energy projects. In total, cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs would be expected to produce at least $1.5 trillion in savings. Trump savings accounts and so, so much more A number of extra provisions reflect other GOP priorities. The House and Senate both have a new children's savings program, called Trump Accounts, with a potential $1,000 deposit from the Treasury. The Senate provided $40 million to establish Trump's long-sought 'National Garden of American Heroes.' There's a new excise tax on university endowments. A $200 tax on gun silencers and short-barreled rifles and shotguns was eliminated. One provision bars money to family planning providers, namely Planned Parenthood, while $88 million is earmarked for a pandemic response accountability committee. Another section expands the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, a hard-fought provision from Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, for those impacted by nuclear development and testing. Billions would go for the Artemis moon mission and for exploration to Mars. The bill would deter states from regulating artificial intelligence by linking certain federal AI infrastructure money to maintaining a freeze. Seventeen Republican governors asked GOP leaders to drop the provision. Also, the interior secretary would be directed to sell certain Bureau of Land Management acreage to provide for housing, but senators said that measure could be stripped out during the amendment process. Additionally, a provision would increase the nation's debt limit, by $5 trillion, to allow continued borrowing to pay already accrued bills. What's the final cost? Altogether, keeping the existing tax breaks and adding the new ones is expected to cost $3.8 trillion over the decade, the CBO says in its analysis of the House bill. An analysis of the Senate draft is pending. The CBO estimates the House-passed package would add $2.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over the decade. Or not, depending on how one does the math. Senate Republicans are proposing a unique strategy of not counting the existing tax breaks as a new cost because those breaks are already 'current policy.' Senators say the Senate Budget Committee chairman has the authority to set the baseline for the preferred approach. Under the Senate GOP view, the tax provisions cost $441 billion, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Democrats and others say this is 'magic math' that obscures the true costs of the GOP tax breaks. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget puts the Senate tally at $4.2 trillion over the decade.
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Debate heats up, but apex court always upheld Preamble amendment
THE political debate on the Emergency-era inclusion of the expressions 'secular' and 'socialist' to the Preamble of the Constitution is once again heating up, but court rulings and parliamentary debates in the past have always upheld the 42nd Constitutional amendment. Over the past few days itself, several key leaders — from Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, RSS leader Dattatreya Hosabale to Union ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Jitendra Singh — have questioned the Emergency-era amendment of the Preamble. In 1976, the Preamble was amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act to add the expressions. The chapter on Fundamental Duties was also introduced in the same amendment. In 2019, the Narendra Modi-led NDA government launched the Citizens' Duties Awareness Programme aimed at increasing awareness of the Constitution with a focus on Fundamental Duties The Janata Party-led government that came to power in 1977 reversed several Emergency-era constitutional amendments with the 44th Constitutional amendment in 1978, thereby restoring civil liberties, reinstating judicial review powers, and protecting press freedom. It, however, retained the changes to the Preamble and inclusion of fundamental duties. Just six months ago, in November 2024, a two-judge bench led by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna dismissed writ petitions challenging the amendment. The bench said that the 'terms have achieved widespread acceptance, with their meanings understood by 'We, the people of India' without any semblance of doubt.' 'The additions to the Preamble have not restricted or impeded legislation or policies pursued by elected governments, provided such actions did not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, we do not find any legitimate cause or justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years,' the ruling said. Even before the 42nd amendment introduced 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble, a 13-judge bench in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati ruling held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution that cannot be done away with. 'The secular character of the state, according to which the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion only, cannot likewise be done away with,' the ruling states. In another landmark ruling in 1980, Minerva Mills v Union of India, which also debated more constitutional amendments made during the Emergency, the Court recognised 'socialism' was a constitutional ideal for the framers. It cited Part IV of the Constitution, which deals with Directive Principles of State Policy, a non-enforceable policy outline for the state that has several socialist ideas. 'We resolved to constitute ourselves into a Socialist State which carried with it the obligation to secure to our people justice —social, economic and political. We, therefore, put part IV into our Constitution containing directive principles of State policy which specify the socialistic goal to be achieved,' the ruling said. Apurva Vishwanath is the National Legal Editor of The Indian Express in New Delhi. She graduated with a B.A., LL. B (Hons) from Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She joined the newspaper in 2019 and in her current role, oversees the newspapers coverage of legal issues. She also closely tracks judicial appointments. Prior to her role at the Indian Express, she has worked with ThePrint and Mint. ... Read More
