Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, U.S., May 20, 2024. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A ball lies stuck on the fencing at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility, where Venezuelans at the center of a Supreme Court ruling on deportation are held, in Anson, Texas, U.S. April 22, 2025. REUTERS/Daniel Cole/File Photo
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?" REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
14 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Hong Kong's last active pro-democracy group says it will disband amid security crackdown
Reporters photograph the press conference where Chan Po-ying, chair of Hong Kong's League of Social Democrats, along with party members Jimmy Sham, Raphael Wong, and Figo Chan, announces the party's dissolution amid China's national security law, in Hong Kong, China, June 29, 2025. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu HONG KONG - Hong Kong's League of Social Democrats said on Sunday that it would disband amid "immense political pressure" from a five year-long national security crackdown, leaving the China-ruled city with no formal pro-democracy opposition presence. The LSD becomes the third major opposition party to shutter in Hong Kong in the past two years. Co-founded in 2006 by former lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung as a radical wing of the pro-democracy camp, the LSD is the last group in Hong Kong to stage small protests this year. Mass public gatherings and marches spearheaded by political and civil society groups had been common in Hong Kong until 2020, but the threat of prosecution has largely shut down organized protests since. China imposed a national security law on the former British colony in 2020, punishing offences like subversion with possible life imprisonment following mass pro-democracy protests in 2019. A second set of laws, known as Article 23, was passed in 2024 by the city's pro-Beijing legislature covering crimes such as sedition and treason. Current chair Chan Po-ying said the group had been "left with no choice" and after considering the safety of party members had decided to shutdown. Chan declined to specify what pressures they had faced. "We have endured hardships of internal disputes and the near total imprisonment of our leadership while witnessing the erosion of civil society, the fading of grassroots voices, the omnipresence of red lines and the draconian suppression of dissent," Chan told reporters, while flanked by six other core members including Tsang Kin-shing, Dickson Chau, Raphael Wong, Figo Chan and Jimmy Sham. In February, the Democratic Party, the city's largest and most popular opposition party, announced it would disband. Several senior members told Reuters they had been warned by Beijing that a failure to do so would mean serious consequences including possible arrests. Earlier this month, China's top official on Hong Kong affairs, Xia Baolong, stressed national security work must continue as hostile forces were still interfering in the city. "We must clearly see that the anti-China and Hong Kong chaos elements are still ruthless and are renewing various forms of soft resistance," Xia said in a speech in Hong Kong. The League of Social Democrats is one of Hong Kong's smaller pro-democracy groups known for its more aggressive tactics and street protests in its advocacy of universal suffrage and grassroots causes including a universal pension scheme. In a 2016 incident, Leung threw a round object at former Hong Kong leader Leung Chun-ying inside the legislature. Three LSD members were fined on June 12 by a magistrate for setting up a street booth where a blank black cloth was displayed and money was collected in public without official permission. Chan told reporters that the party had no assets to divest and no funds left after several of its bank accounts were shut down in 2023. While never as popular as the more moderate Democratic Party and Civic Party, it gained three seats in a 2008 legislative election - its best showing. The LSD's founder Leung, 69, was arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit subversion in 2021 in the landmark '47 Democrats' case. He is currently serving a sentence of six years and nine months in prison. Another member, Jimmy Sham, was also jailed in the same case and released in May. The security laws have been criticised as a tool of repression by the U.S. and Britain, but China says they have restored stability with 332 people so far arrested under these laws. "I hope that the people of Hong Kong will continue to pay attention to the vulnerable, and they will continue to speak out for injustice," Figo Chan said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
G7 agrees to exempt US multinationals from global minimum tax
THE Group of Seven nations said Saturday (Jun 28) they have agreed to exempt US multinational companies from a global minimum tax imposed by other countries – a win for President Donald Trump's government, which pushed hard for the compromise. The deal will see US companies benefit from a 'side-by-side' solution under which they will only be taxed at home, on both domestic and foreign profits, the G7 said in a statement released by Canada, which holds the group's rotating presidency. The agreement was reached in part due to 'recently proposed changes to the US international tax system' included in Trump's signature domestic policy bill, which is still being debated in Congress, the statement said. The side-by-side system could 'provide greater stability and certainty in the international tax system moving forward', it added. Nearly 140 countries struck a deal in 2021 to tax multinational companies, an agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). That agreement, deeply criticised by Trump, includes two 'pillars', the second of which sets a minimum global tax rate of 15 per cent. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up The OECD must ultimately decide to exempt the US companies from that tax – or not. The G7 said it looked forward to 'expeditiously reaching a solution that is acceptable and implementable to all'. On Thursday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had signalled that a 'joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests' was in the works. He also asked US lawmakers to 'to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill' – Trump's policy mega-bill. Section 899 has been dubbed a 'revenge tax', allowing the government to impose levies on firms with foreign owners and on investors from countries deemed to impose unfair taxes on US businesses. The clause sparked concern that it would inhibit foreign companies from investing in the United States. AFP
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
UK police studying Glastonbury performances after anti-Israel chants
Mo Chara of Kneecap performs at Glastonbury Festival at Worthy Farm in Pilton, Somerset, Britain, June 28, 2025. REUTERS/Jaimi Joy GLASTONBURY, England - British police said they were considering whether to launch an investigation after performers at Glastonbury Festival made anti-Israel comments during their shows. "We are aware of the comments made by acts on the West Holts Stage at Glastonbury Festival this afternoon," Avon and Somerset Police, in western England, said on X late on Saturday. Irish hip-hop group Kneecap and punk duo Bob Vylan made anti-Israeli chants in separate shows on the West Holts stage on Saturday. One of the members of Bob Vylan chanted "Death, death, to the IDF" in a reference to the Israel Defense Forces. "Video evidence will be assessed by officers to determine whether any offences may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation," the police statement said. The Israeli Embassy in Britain said it was "deeply disturbed by the inflammatory and hateful rhetoric expressed on stage at the Glastonbury Festival". Prime Minister Keir Starmer said earlier this month it was "not appropriate" for Kneecap to appear at Glastonbury. The band's frontman Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh was charged with a terrorism offence last month for allegedly displaying a flag in support of Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah at a concert in November. He has denied the charge. A British government minister said it was appalling that the anti-Israel chants had been made at Glastonbury, and that the festival's organisers and the BBC broadcaster - which is showing the event - had questions to answer. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said he was also appalled by violence committed by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. "I'd also say to the Israeli Embassy, get your own house in order in terms of the conduct of your own citizens and the settlers in the West Bank," Streeting told Sky News. "I wish they'd take the violence of their own citizens towards Palestinians more seriously," he said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
