Upending US birthright citizenship would have drastic negative impact, defenders warn
The Supreme Court heard a case this month centered on President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end so-called birthright citizenship, in one of the most closely watched and potentially impactful cases heard by the court in recent years.
Though the case itself was used largely as a means of challenging lower court powers to issue so-called universal or nationwide injunctions, justices on the high court did inquire about the merits of the order itself, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," which Trump signed on the first day of his second White House term.
The order, which was slated to take force Feb. 20, directed all U.S. agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to children born to illegal immigrants or children born to mothers living in the country on a temporary visa, if the father is not a permanent resident or U.S. citizen.
Despite the Supreme Court's focus on universal injunctions in hearing the case, deep and unyielding concerns persist about Trump's attempt to undo more than 100 years of legal precedent.
The ACLU included in its lawsuit the story of one couple from Indonesia but living in New Hampshire whom they said would be affected by the order.
"They arrived in 2023, applied for asylum, and their application awaits review," ACLU attorneys said of the couple. "The mom-to-be is in her third trimester.
"Under this executive order, their baby would be considered an undocumented noncitizen and could be denied basic health care and nutrition, putting the newborn at grave risk at such a vulnerable stage of life," they added.
And such problems would persist throughout their lives, lawyers for the group noted. These persons would not be able to obtain necessary identification, such as drivers' licenses, and would not be able to vote, hold some jobs or serve on juries.
Though Trump had spoken in detail in his first term and on the campaign trail about wanting to end birthright citizenship, his executive order sent shockwaves through the nation. It was met by a wave of lawsuits from Democrat-led states and immigrants' rights groups.
One lawsuit, brought by 18 Democratic attorneys general, warned that ending birthright citizenship would strip hundreds of thousands of U.S.-born children of their citizenship as the result of a circumstance completely outside a child's control.
Statistics also bear this out. Roughly 150,000 children are born annually in the U.S. to parents of noncitizens. If the order were to take force as Trump envisioned, experts warned the impact would be catastrophic.
"President Trump's attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship is a flagrant violation of our Constitution," New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who joined 17 other Democrat-led states in suing to block the order, said earlier this year.
"For more than 150 years, our country has followed the same basic rule: Babies who are born in this country are American citizens," Platkin added.
More than 22 U.S. states and immigrants' rights groups sued the Trump administration to block the change to birthright citizenship prior to the Supreme Court's decision to take up the case, arguing in court filings that the executive order is both unconstitutional and "unprecedented."
To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration in upholding the executive order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
7 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Guatemalan man deported to Mexico returns to US after court orders Trump administration to do so
A Guatemalan man deported to Mexico, whom President Donald Trump's administration was working to bring back after a court order, landed in the United States on Wednesday, his attorneys confirmed. The man, identified in court documents by initials O.C.G., landed in California via a commercial flight and made contact with his legal team while waiting in line to go through U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance. 'We expect that he will be detained, but we don't know where yet,' she said in an email to The Associated Press. The Trump administration said in court filings last month that it was working to bring him back after he was deported to Mexico, despite his fears of being harmed there, days after a federal judge ordered the administration to facilitate his return. The U.S. Department of Justice didn't immediately respond to a request for comments and details from the AP. The man, who is gay, was protected from being returned to his home country under a U.S. immigration judge's order at the time. But the U.S. put him on a bus and sent him to Mexico instead, a removal that U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy found likely 'lacked any semblance of due process.' Mexico later returned him to Guatemala, where he was in hiding, according to court documents. In a court filing before his return, government lawyers said that a so-called significant public benefit parole packet had been approved. The designation allows people who aren't eligible to enter the U.S. to do so temporarily, often for reasons related to law enforcement or legal proceedings. An earlier court proceeding had determined that the man risked persecution or torture if returned to Guatemala. But he also feared returning to Mexico, where he says he was raped and extorted while seeking asylum in the U.S., according to court documents. 'As far as we know, it is the first time since January 20 that (Department of Homeland Security) has facilitated return following a district court order,' Realmuto said. The case is among a string of findings by federal courts against recent Trump administration deportations. Those have included other deportations to third countries and the erroneous deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia , an El Salvadoran man who had lived in Maryland for roughly 14 years. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the U.S. from a notorious Salvadoran prison, rejecting the White House's claim that it couldn't retrieve him after mistakenly deporting him. Both the White House and the El Salvadoran president have said they are powerless to return him.
Washington Post
7 minutes ago
- Washington Post
House Oversight Committee expands inquiry into Biden's mental condition and final acts in office
WASHINGTON — The House Oversight Committee is requesting interviews with members of former President Joe Biden's innermost circle as Republicans ramp up their investigation into the final moves of the Biden administration. Oversight Chairman James Comer of Kentucky, a Republican, requested transcribed interviews with five Biden aides, alleging they had participated in a 'cover-up' that amounted to 'one of the greatest scandals in our nation's history.'
Washington Post
8 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Army leaders defend parade and border spending as Congress presses for answers
WASHINGTON — Army leaders on Wednesday defended spending as much as $45 million to add a parade to the service's 250th birthday celebration on June 14 in Washington, saying it will help boost recruitment, as Congress members argued that the money could be better spent on troops' barracks or other priorities. Members of the House Armed Services Committee also said they are concerned that the Defense Department is shifting about $1 billion from a variety of accounts — including base housing — to cover the costs of shoring up the defense of the southern border. Spending for the parade has become a flashpoint since it comes at a time when the Trump administration is slashing funding for personnel and programs across the federal government, including the Defense Department. While the Army has long planned for a festival on the National Mall to celebrate its 250th birthday, the parade was just recently added. President Donald Trump has long wanted a military parade in the city, after seeing an elaborate one in France on Bastille Day during his first presidential term, and June 14 is also his birthday. U.S. Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-Calif., questioned whether the additional cost of the parade was appropriate since all the military services are facing 8% budget cuts, and said perhaps it could be used to improve troops' quality of life or warfighting capabilities. He prodded Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll on what he would prioritize if Congress wrote him a blank check for $45 million. Driscoll replied that he thinks the parade offers a chance to tell the public about the Army. 'I believe very specifically that telling that story will directly lead to a recruiting boom and will fill up our pipeline for the coming years,' he said. At the same time, he and Gen. Randy George, chief of staff of the Army, told lawmakers that the service has now met its recruiting goal for the year — with 61,000 recruits. Army officials have predicted for months that they would hit the target early after making a series of changes to recruiting programs, recruiters and policies over the past several years. That prompted Rep. Wesley Bell, D-Mo., to ask why the parade was needed for recruiting if it's already surging. Driscoll said the Army believes the parade 'will empower an entire new generation of America's youth to catch the spirit to serve their nation.' Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wisc., defended the parade spending, saying 'you cannot put a price tag on patriotism.' House members on both sides of the aisle pressed the Army about a recent request to shift money from across the budget to support the southern border. The biggest concern, they said, is that it takes money away from base housing, which has been plagued with persistent problems, including mold, rodents and raw sewage in barracks. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., agreed the nation needs a strong border, but said lawmakers worked for the past year on a broad effort to address the housing problems. 'I feel like a decision was made that undermined this whole effort that we spent the last year doing.,' he said. Pressed on the issue by Carbajal, George acknowledged that redirecting the money has an impact on the barracks. 'If we took $1 billion out of barracks, we would be able to fix less barracks,' he agreed, but also said, ''You have to make choices, congressman.'
