Latest news with #ExecutiveOrder14160
The Hindu
16-07-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Golden visa schemes are response to conflicts, Trump's decisions on U.S. citizenship: Dubai-based immigration expert
The golden visa schemes that are being introduced by several countries including the United Arab Emirates is a response to the currently prevailing sense of global uncertainties, said a leading immigration specialist. Speaking to The Hindu in New Delhi on Wednesday (July 16, 2025), Andri Boiko, Dubai-based immigration specialist and entrepreneur said pandemic, conflicts in West Asia and Ukraine, U.S. President Trump's orders on U.S. citizenship rules and attraction of tax relief among high net worth individuals in the Global South are reshaping the immigration landscape of the world. 'United Arab Emirates has started the golden visa scheme that will give ten year visa for high net worth individuals and for individuals with extraordinary skills from India and other countries. Argentina is also expected to start the golden visa scheme later this year,' said Mr. Boiko, explaining that the way global immigration rules are being redefined against the background of the tough changes that are being introduced by the U.S. administration. President Trump on January 20 issued Executive Order 14160 'denying citizenship to persons born from a mother who was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) at the time of said person's birth'. The order has been at the centre of a fierce debate and has been challenged in the court putting a question mark on the citizenship status of many U.S. citizens. Mr. Boiko, who started 'Garant In' in 2009 as a citizenship and residency advisory service in Dubai, said changing rules and taxation are pushing more and more high achievers to find safe locations where they can ensure safety of their finances and conduct business without hindrance. 'The UAE's golden visa will give high net worth investors and high achievers from India and other countries the edge of Dubai while they will continue to be based in India,' said Mr. Boiko, adding, 'You can get the golden visa without surrendering Indian passport and this will increasingly become a trend worldwide'. Mr. Boiko pointed out that while some countries in the West are cracking down on illegal immigration from the Global South, there also some western countries especially Portugal, Italy, France in Europe who want to welcome high net worth individuals from major countries in the Global South. 'Taxation, future security of finances and investment into the next generation, status symbol, are also among the reasons that are prompting high net worth people from the Global South to explore possibility of becoming a long term resident of a country like Italy and France,' said Mr. Boiko.
Time Magazine
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Time Magazine
History Shows Why Birthright Citizenship is so Important
On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump's first day back in the White House, he issued Executive Order 14160 'Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.' The directive attempted to nullify birthright citizenship, as enshrined by the Fourteenth Amendment for over 150 years, and restore an older understanding of U.S. citizenship not seen since before the Civil War. The framers of the Amendment worried about such an effort. They consciously chose to go through the rigors of the amendment process—instead of just passing a law—precisely to prevent future Congresses from repealing principles like birthright citizenship and to avoid future Supreme Courts from improperly interpreting them. They wanted to permanently ensure that American law would be more inclusive by extending U.S. citizenship—and the federal protections that came with it—to African Americans. The goal was to protect Black Americans against state discrimination after the abolition of slavery. Section One of the Amendment accordingly stated 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' Trump's order aims to eliminate this guarantee of citizenship for people born in the U.S. whose mothers were 'unlawfully present' or when the mother's presence in the U.S. was 'lawful but temporary.' While multiple legal challenges wind their way through the federal judiciary, the Supreme Court ruled on June 27 that a nationwide injunction halting implementation of the Executive Order was inappropriate. Then, last week, a federal judge temporarily blocked Trump's order and allowed a class-action suit on behalf of children and parents impacted by Trump's order to proceed. The history, however, is unambiguous: birthright citizenship was a necessary solution to the most fundamental question in U.S. history—who is included in the political community. It aimed to do away with longstanding limitations on many Americans' ability to move about, to live where they wanted, and to be free. Read More: What to Know About Trump's Order on Birthright Citizenship and the Legal Battle Around It Before the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, African Americans suffered much discrimination due to the lack of clarity of their legal citizenship status. The Naturalization Act of 1790 had defined eligibility for U.S. citizenship as limited to 'free white persons.' Thus, European migrants easily and quickly became U.S. citizens and gained access to the attendant rights, privileges, and protections that came with it. By contrast, before the Civil War, enslaved Black Americans were regarded by law as property and without rights. This legal situation left an open question—did free African Americans have citizenship? During the antebellum period, slave and free states alike were obsessed with policing the mobility and settlement of free Black Americans. After the Revolutionary War, states passed many laws to minimize the size of any free Black populations in their jurisdictions. Free Blacks faced a patchwork of restrictionist laws dictating which states and towns they could legally go to and live in. Slave states went even further. They passed laws banning free Black people from even entering their borders, and exile laws requiring formerly enslaved persons to leave the state by a deadline or risk being re-enslaved. Between 1793 and 1820, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Georgia all passed laws banning Black migration into their states—even for people born in the U.S. Especially in the eight coastal slave states, legislators claimed such laws were necessary to protect their states from the 'threat' of enslaved insurrection. They argued that free Black Americans, including sailors working on foreign and domestic ships, would intermix with enslaved people and increase the odds of such revolts. Slave states weren't alone in taking such actions. During this time, free states in the upper Midwest that bordered slave states passed laws creating legal disabilities and burdensome bureaucratic hurdles for free Black people who wanted to stay within their borders. These laws didn't apply to white Americans or even white immigrants. In many towns, new arrivals would have to register at the county clerk's office and bring proof of how they became free. Other towns required letters from white witnesses attesting to a person's good moral character in order to stay or required exorbitantly high fees for free Blacks wanting to live there. States claimed that they were defending themselves against an influx of indigent people who would drain their public coffers and disrupt the public peace. In reality, the laws were more about upholding slavery, preventing Black labor competition⎯and in many cases, simply racism. Although there is little evidence that the laws restricting the mobility of African Americans and their ability to live where they chose were widely enforced, the laws enabled racial profiling and harassment. To be sure, some European migrants also faced discrimination in housing and employment. Yet, white migrants were not required by law to carry passes legalizing their interstate travel or settlement. In a time before digital technology, African Americans' identities had to be carefully preserved and portable. An African American's freedom and presence in parts of the U.S. was as fragile as the pieces of paper that they were legally required to carry and which could be lost, damaged, stolen—or disbelieved by whites. Free African Americans also worried about being able to stay in the U.S. and not be involuntarily removed to countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America. Such fears were not unmerited. The American Colonization Society (ACS), founded in 1819, reached its zenith of support by the 1850s. Working with the federal and state governments, the group spearheaded efforts to remove free African Americans from the U.S. The ACS was motivated by the discriminatory belief that free African Americans could not be politically incorporated into the nation. What worried Black Americans was whether these colonization programs would be voluntary. Read More: Birthright Citizenship Has Been Challenged Before After the Civil War ended, the framers of the three Reconstruction amendments, especially the 14th Amendment, were conscious of these earlier laws as they worked to make the Constitution more inclusive. They sought to remove all doubt that free Black Americans—including those who had been enslaved—had full citizenship rights, and would not face such laws giving them subordinate status. African Americans advocated for such protections to ensure that they would never involuntarily have to leave the only country they had known. The framers of the 14th Amendment chose plain language, and only made three exceptions to the ironclad guarantee of birthright citizenship: children born to foreign diplomats in the U.S., children born in U.S. territory occupied by enemy soldiers, and Native Americans. The exclusion of Indigenous people was out of deference to their citizenship in their own Native nations. The protections afforded by the 14th Amendment wiped away African Americans' fears of colonization programs, as well as rendering state laws restricting interstate mobility and settlement unconstitutional. In 1898, in the landmark case of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the birthright citizenship guarantee, clarifying that even if one's parents were legally ineligible for U.S. citizenship, a child born on U.S. soil was a citizen. The overriding goal of the framers of the birthright citizenship clause (and the Reconstruction Amendments generally) was to include African Americans who had been left out of the U.S. polity⎯to form a more perfect union. Although the U.S. certainly still has gradations of belonging, the Fourteenth Amendment's birthright citizenship clause's broad inclusivity is well-established and indisputable, and it should be a point of national pride, which represents Americans' commitment to a multi-racial democracy. That requires strongly rejecting any attempt reinstate the exclusion and discrimination which spurred its creation. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz chair in constitutional rights at CUNY Brooklyn College. Her forthcoming book The Origins of American Citizenship and Migration—African Americans, Native Americans, and Immigrants will be out from Oxford University Press in the spring of 2026. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
The Hill
14-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
The Supreme Court is slowly strangling the Constitution
Speaking for a 6-3 majority in Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court case involving birthright citizenship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that while the 'executive has a duty to follow the law, the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation.' That sentence should strike fear into the heart of every American. And it was the last thing the Framers had in mind when they designed the U.S. Constitution. If anyone had heard those words when the Constitution was debated, it would have been rejected out of hand. Opponents of the Constitution — and there were many — agreed with Patrick Henry that the proposed new government with its presidential office 'squints towards monarchy; and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American?' Barrett's controversial statement arose from a legal challenge to Executive Order 14160 signed by Donald Trump on Jan. 20. It identified circumstances in which a person born in the United States is not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' and bluntly stated: 'The 14th Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.' The 14th Amendment came into being as a result of the infamous 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, a ruling described by Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter as 'one of the court's great self-inflicted wounds.' Chief Justice Roger B. Taney declared in his ruling that slaves had no constitutional rights and were analogous to property, or as Frederick Douglass put it, were no different from horses, sheep, or swine sold on the auction block. Douglass called the decision an endorsement of the slaveholders' mantra: 'A firmer hold and a tighter grip.' In making its case to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration cleverly did not ask it to rule on the executive order's constitutionality, but whether federal courts could issue nationwide injunctions against its enforcement. The court ruled that enforcing Trump's executive order would only apply in the 22 states and the cities of San Francisco and the District of Columbia that were a party to the lawsuit; it did not apply elsewhere until a final ruling on the order's constitutionality is issued sometime in the Supreme Court's next term. A New Hampshire federal judge has restored the nationwide ban on enforcing Trump's order thanks to a class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union following the Supreme Court's decision. Immediately following that ruling, White House spokesman Harrison Fields said the Trump administration 'will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement.' According to Trump's retelling of American history, birthright citizenship is a 'historical myth' that applied only to the 'babies of slaves, very obviously.' He further stated that the 14th Amendment 'has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.' Wrong. In several decisions issued after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Supreme Court ruled that persons of various nationalities who were born in the U.S. are citizens who possess the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Nonetheless, Trump said he was 'grateful' to the court, calling Barrett's decision 'brilliantly written.' The three dissenting justices in Trump v. CASA were hardly filled with gratitude. Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling a 'travesty.' She was particularly disturbed by the precedent it created. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates,' she wrote. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,' she wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was particularly aggrieved by the court's plain disregard of the language contained in the 14th Amendment. 'A Martian arriving here from another planet would see these circumstances and surely wonder, 'what good is the Constitution, then?'' she wrote. 'What really is this system for protecting people's rights if it amounts to this — placing the onus on the victims to invoke the law's protection, and rendering the very institution that has the singular function of ensuring compliance with the Constitution powerless to prevent the government from violating it?'' Jackson finished the thought, writing 'Those things Americans call constitutional rights seem hardly worth the paper they are written on!' With the Supreme Court's decision in this case, yet another dagger is aimed at the very heart of the Constitution. Retired federal appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig says: 'It is no longer possible for the Supreme Court to stop this president.' A grateful Trump is relishing his newfound powers. After signing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, Trump confessed: 'I think I have more power now [than I did in the first term.]' He's right. And therein lies a mortal threat to the republic. In 1860, the Republican Party Platform stated that the 'maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the federal Constitution' was 'essential to the preservation of our republican institutions,' adding that 'the Federal Constitution, the rights of states, and the union of states must and shall be preserved.' But Trump's Republican Party refuses to abide by those inspiring words. In their new book, 'Subverting the Republic,' political scientists Nicholas F. Jacobs and Sidney M. Milkis, write, 'The republic is sick.' More to the point, the patient is on life support. Back in 2020, Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin pressed his knee on the neck of George Floyd for nine minutes and twenty-nine seconds, until he died. Like the slaveholders of yesteryear, Trump and the Supreme Court have 'a firm hold and a tighter grip' on the very lifeblood of the U.S. Constitution. It's already eight minutes and counting. John Kenneth White is a professor emeritus at The Catholic University of America. His latest book is titled 'Grand Old Unraveling: The Republican Party, Donald Trump, and the Rise of Authoritarianism.'
Economic Times
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Economic Times
What is Birthright Citizenship? 10 key points to know about the US Supreme Court's decision today
US Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling has opened a new chapter in America's immigration and legal policy. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled 6–3 to limit federal courts from issuing nationwide blocks on presidential actions, giving President Donald Trump the green light to begin implementing his controversial executive order to end automatic citizenship for some U.S.-born children. While birthright citizenship is still protected under the 14th Amendment, this procedural decision gives Trump more control over immigration policy and future executive powers. The legal fight isn't over, but the balance of power has clearly shifted—possibly for years to come. US Supreme Court limits court powers, boosting Trump's move to end birthright citizenship. The June 27 ruling clears the way for executive action on immigration, reshaping how legal challenges are handled. Birthright citizenship fight now heads into deeper legal waters. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What is birthright citizenship and why is it at the center of the legal fight? Why did the Supreme Court limit nationwide injunctions? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Is birthright citizenship still legal in the US? Here are 10 key takeaways from today's Supreme Court decision: Birthright citizenship explained Birthright citizenship refers to the legal principle that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This right is granted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all persons 'born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' are citizens. The Trump Executive Order In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aiming to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or temporarily. This move reignited national debate on the scope of the 14th Amendment. The lawsuit and injunction Several immigrant advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations sued the administration, and federal courts quickly issued nationwide injunctions, temporarily halting enforcement of the order across the country. Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions In today's ruling, the Supreme Court held that federal district courts had overreached their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said courts can only block executive actions for named plaintiffs and within their jurisdiction—not for the entire nation. A procedural, not constitutional, decision Importantly, the Court did not rule on whether Trump's executive order violates the 14th Amendment. It focused only on the legal question of how far courts can go in stopping federal actions during ongoing litigation. The 30-day window The Court gave lower courts 30 days to revise or narrow their injunctions. This means the current block on Trump's order remains for now—but likely only for those directly involved in the case. Liberal dissent Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. They warned that limiting injunctions would allow potentially unconstitutional actions to impact millions of people before a full legal review can be completed. Impact on future litigation This decision redefines how legal challenges to federal policies proceed. Moving forward, district courts will find it harder to issue sweeping nationwide bans—even in urgent civil rights cases. Trump hails the ruling President Trump celebrated the decision, calling it a victory over 'radical left judges' who he claims have tried to overrule executive power. His campaign has emphasized ending birthright citizenship as part of his broader immigration agenda. What's next? While the nationwide injunctions are likely to be scaled back, the underlying case about whether the executive order violates the Constitution will continue through the courts. A final ruling on the substance of birthright citizenship may still be months—or years—away. What do dissenting justices say about this change? How does this ruling expand presidential power? What happens next in the legal battle over birthright citizenship? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What's the broader impact of the ruling? Birthright citizenship is still alive, but the rules are changing FAQs: In a landmark decision on June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made a major ruling affecting the future of birthright citizenship and how much power presidents have when issuing executive orders. The Court didn't outright end the constitutional right to citizenship for children born on U.S. soil—but it did clear the way for President Donald Trump's controversial executive order to begin taking effect. More importantly, it drastically limits how federal courts can block presidential actions nationwide. Here's everything you need to know about what happened, why it matters, and what comes citizenship is based on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that anyone born in the United States and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is a U.S. citizen. This rule has long applied even to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or only temporarily. This sparked immediate backlash from immigrant rights groups, who argue that the executive order goes against the Trump's executive order was issued, federal courts quickly stepped in and blocked its enforcement with nationwide injunctions. But on June 27, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district courts had overstepped their Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, said that lower courts may only issue injunctions that protect the people who actually filed the lawsuit, not block the law across the entire country. This means that while Trump's order remains on hold for now, it's only blocked for a limited number of plaintiffs, not for now. The Court's ruling did not decide whether Trump's order is constitutional. Instead, it focused only on the procedure—specifically how courts can pause government actions while cases are pending. So birthright citizenship still stands, but the fight over it will continue in the courts for months, if not Barrett made it clear that lower courts have 30 days to narrow their injunctions. In practical terms, this opens the door for the Trump administration to start enforcing the executive order soon—at least for people not directly involved in the Court's three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented. They warned that limiting courts' ability to block federal actions could allow potentially unconstitutional policies to harm millions before being properly argued that in cases affecting civil rights, immigration, healthcare, and more, courts need the power to issue broader protections. Without that, executive actions could go unchecked until higher courts finally weigh in—potentially too late for those already Trump called the ruling a 'giant win', saying it strikes back at 'radical left judges' who he believes have blocked his policies unfairly. His administration says the decision restores a proper balance between the executive branch and the his return to office, Trump has pushed dozens of executive actions—many of which have been held up by federal judges. These include cuts to foreign aid, changes to diversity programs, rollbacks on immigration protections, and adjustments to election ruling doesn't just apply to birthright citizenship—it makes it much harder for lower courts to freeze other executive orders nationwide, allowing Trump and future presidents to act more freely while legal battles play the Supreme Court ruling doesn't end the legal challenge, it shifts the strategy. The main lawsuit will continue, and eventually, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional—possibly as soon as October 2025, according to Attorney General Pam the meantime, enforcement will vary depending on which state you're in. Because states issue birth certificates, and many Democratic-led states don't collect data on parents' immigration status, they may resist implementing Trump's Barrett also acknowledged that states may suffer financial and administrative burdens from the new rule—hinting that lower courts might still justify broader injunctions if specific harms are ruling marks a shift in American legal and political power. For decades, both Democratic and Republican presidents have clashed with district courts that blocked their actions. The Supreme Court's decision now narrows that power, giving the White House more room to Congressional Research Service noted that from Trump's inauguration to April 29, 2025, there were 25 instances where federal courts halted executive decision could affect not only immigration, but also climate policies, student loan programs, and workplace rules, giving presidents more control while the courts catch Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025, doesn't eliminate birthright citizenship—but it paves the way for President Trump to start enforcing his order, and it reshapes how the legal system checks executive next few months will be crucial as lower courts revise their rulings, and states decide how to respond. Meanwhile, the broader debate over constitutional rights, immigration, and presidential power is far from Court allowed Trump's executive order to move forward by limiting court but Trump's policy could change how it's applied during ongoing court battles.
Fast Company
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Fast Company
Supreme Court backs Trump on birthright citizenship injunctions. Here's what that means:
The Supreme Court ended its term on Friday with a major decision in the closely watched birthright citizenship case, that is likely to have a profound impact on whether the lower courts can pause or halt President Donald Trump's executive orders—which many legal experts say constitute an overreach of presidential power. What happened? Ruling along ideological lines 6–3, the court's conservative majority decided to curb injunctions from the lower courts that temporarily paused President Donald Trump's plan to end automatic birthright citizenship via Executive Order 14160, which aims to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally, on temporary visas, or not 'lawful permanent residents' at the time of the child's birth. However, that right is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' To be clear, the Supreme Court justices did not rule on the merits, or constitutionality, of ending birthright citizenship. The Trump administration didn't ask the court to rule on the issue itself, and instead asked the high court to rule on whether federal judges have the power to issue injunctions that would block Trump's order nationwide, while litigation continues. The Supreme Court ruled in Trump's favor to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by federal judges, effectively sending back the rulings to lower courts. For the 28 states that have not challenged the birthright executive order in court, automatic citizenship could end for children born in the U.S. whose parents are undocumented immigrants, and some temporary residents and visitors, according to the New York Times. The court also stopped his executive order from taking effect for 30 days. Friday's ruling is a significant victory for Trump, and a major blow to his opponents who have been trying to limit his executive orders. Trump calls ruling 'monumental victory' On Friday, speaking at the White House, Trump called the decision a 'monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.' That's the opposite of what Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, which argued ' the Court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution. The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a 'solemn mockery' of our Constitution.' And added, 'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.' In a separate dissent, Jackson called the majority decision an ' existential threat to the rule of law.' In response, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority decision pushed back, and said 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.' Trump first pledged to end birthright as early as 2015, and again in 2018, before issuing an executive order on the issue in January. Trump has instituted a crackdown on immigration since taking office that has lead to some immigrants, green card holders, foreigners, and even American citizens being detained by the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
