Latest news with #ExecutiveOrder14160
Economic Times
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Economic Times
Indian parents face uncertainty over US citizenship for newborns
The wait for temporary US visas for soon-to-be-born babies of expectant Indian moms has just gotten longer, immigration lawyers told ET. The challenge to the Presidential executive order on birthright citizenship is still awaiting a decision in the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS). Trump's executive order puts the US citizenship of unborn children of foreign nationals including Indians on temporary visa in limbo. This has caused much anxiety among the expecting Indian parents as they throng immigration attorney offices to seek further counsel. While some are even considering shifting to those states that do not recognize the Trump order as of now, an attorney, who did not wish to be identified, told ET."The scenario for Indian nationals on temporary visas expecting children in the US is quite uncertain. Depending on the jurisdiction, children born in the US may or may not automatically acquire citizenship," said Sukanya Raman, country head, Davies and Associates. "This is complicating decisions around childbirth and long-term residency planning." (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) According to experts, about 1.5 lakh newborns annually could be denied US citizenship if the order comes into effect. Many foreign nationals have in the past used the US' birthright citizenship path to gain legal entry for their offsprings. This has given way to "birth tourism" which refers to the practice where foreign nationals travel to the United States on visitor visas with the primary intention of giving birth. This ensures their children automatically acquire US citizenship under the 14th trend has been particularly common among women from countries like Russia, China, and Nigeria, said experts. "Recently, a growing number of Indian nationals have also pursued this route," said an SCOTUS deliberations, which started on May 15, primarily focused on the scope of nationwide injunctions rather than the constitutionality of executive order itself, said experts. Despite being a smaller share, Indian families could be deeply impacted by changes to birthright citizenship laws, given the large number of Indian nationals on temporary visas, say experts. "Our firm has been receiving a continuous flow of inquiries from Indian nationals ever since Executive Order 14160 was announced," said attorney Prachi Shah who runs her eponymous firm. Expecting parents on H-1B, H-4, F-1 and OPT visas are queueing up at the immigration lawyers' offices. There is widespread anxiety in the Indian diaspora, said lawyers."The executive order is quite egregious," said Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney, some parents, it's devastating because to have a child in the US after decades of living here and not have them be a US citizen is ridiculous," he usually takes 10-15 years for people to get a green card in the US for people who are here legally."The outcome of the hearing is not clear as to what is going to happen," said Khanna."The US Census doesn't collect statistics on the legal status of parents, but roughly 21-25% of babies have at least one foreign citizen parent," said Jath Shao, principal attorney, Shao Law Firm."The Trump administration's strategy seems to be arguing technicalities and wanting to impose their changes and make all the individual states and plaintiffs fight it," said Shao.
Time of India
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Indian parents face uncertainty over US citizenship for newborns
The wait for temporary US visas for soon-to-be-born babies of expectant Indian moms has just gotten longer, immigration lawyers told ET. The challenge to the Presidential executive order on birthright citizenship is still awaiting a decision in the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS). Trump's executive order puts the US citizenship of unborn children of foreign nationals including Indians on temporary visa in limbo. This has caused much anxiety among the expecting Indian parents as they throng immigration attorney offices to seek further counsel. While some are even considering shifting to those states that do not recognize the Trump order as of now, an attorney, who did not wish to be identified, told ET. "The scenario for Indian nationals on temporary visas expecting children in the US is quite uncertain. Depending on the jurisdiction, children born in the US may or may not automatically acquire citizenship," said Sukanya Raman, country head, Davies and Associates. "This is complicating decisions around childbirth and long-term residency planning." (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) According to experts, about 1.5 lakh newborns annually could be denied US citizenship if the order comes into effect. Live Events Many foreign nationals have in the past used the US' birthright citizenship path to gain legal entry for their offsprings. This has given way to "birth tourism" which refers to the practice where foreign nationals travel to the United States on visitor visas with the primary intention of giving birth. This ensures their children automatically acquire US citizenship under the 14th Amendment. This trend has been particularly common among women from countries like Russia, China, and Nigeria, said experts. "Recently, a growing number of Indian nationals have also pursued this route," said an attorney. The SCOTUS deliberations, which started on May 15, primarily focused on the scope of nationwide injunctions rather than the constitutionality of executive order itself, said experts. Despite being a smaller share, Indian families could be deeply impacted by changes to birthright citizenship laws, given the large number of Indian nationals on temporary visas, say experts. "Our firm has been receiving a continuous flow of inquiries from Indian nationals ever since Executive Order 14160 was announced," said attorney Prachi Shah who runs her eponymous firm. Expecting parents on H-1B, H-4, F-1 and OPT visas are queueing up at the immigration lawyers' offices. There is widespread anxiety in the Indian diaspora, said lawyers. "The executive order is quite egregious," said Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney, "For some parents, it's devastating because to have a child in the US after decades of living here and not have them be a US citizen is ridiculous," he said. It usually takes 10-15 years for people to get a green card in the US for people who are here legally. "The outcome of the hearing is not clear as to what is going to happen," said Khanna. "The US Census doesn't collect statistics on the legal status of parents, but roughly 21-25% of babies have at least one foreign citizen parent," said Jath Shao, principal attorney, Shao Law Firm. "The Trump administration's strategy seems to be arguing technicalities and wanting to impose their changes and make all the individual states and plaintiffs fight it," said Shao.
The Intercept
14-05-2025
- Politics
- The Intercept
A Lawmaker Fights for Birthright Citizenship — With or Without the Supreme Court
Support Us © THE INTERCEPT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., talks with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol after the last votes of the week on March 6, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images As the Supreme Court weighs whether to allow the Trump administration to massively restrict birthright citizenship, Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., is attempting to use Congress's power of the purse to block the administration's attack on constitutionally protected rights. In January, Trump signed Executive Order 14160, which would prevent children born in the United States and its territories from automatically becoming U.S. citizens if their parents are undocumented immigrants or on a temporary visa, such as a work or student visa. Trump's order was immediately blocked by lower courts on the basis of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship for 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the case Thursday, Ramirez told The Intercept she will introduce a bill prohibiting the use of federal funds to carry out Trump's executive order and reaffirming birthright citizenship. This issue is personal for Ramirez, who is the only member of Congress born to parents who were undocumented at the time of her birth. 'My mother and father fled poverty in Guatemala, and my mother was pregnant with me when she came to this country, and I was born in Cook County Hospital in the city of Chicago. I still live in the same community,' said Ramirez. 'The idea that [Trump] would call to question who's American and who's not — it's absolutely, very personal to me.' Ramirez said it's clear that Trump's executive order isn't about immigration, it's about upholding white supremacy — a fact further evidenced by his administration's move to end temporary status for Afghan and Haitian immigrants, then immediately offer refugee status to white South Africans. 'It's pretty blatant that this is an attack that is seeded on white supremacy and racism,' she said. Read Our Complete Coverage The oral arguments before the Supreme Court involve a case challenging several lower court decisions blocking the executive order from going into effect nationwide. The Trump administration is arguing that lower court judges don't have the power to issue nationwide injunctions and that these rulings should be limited in scope, if possible, to the specific people who brought cases. Five pregnant women in Maryland brought cases against the Trump administration, fearing for the citizenship status of their future children. The administration is also challenging the ability of states to bring these cases on behalf of their residents. Four states have brought lawsuits against the administration's executive order: Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. The consequences of the Supreme Court's decision in this case could prove wide-ranging for civil liberties in the United States and challenges to the Trump administration's sweeping agenda, legal experts said. 'No national injunction means that either we get checkerboard justice, where rights exist in some places and not in others,' said Margo Schlanger, a law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, 'or we get this huge tax on the organizations that are trying to vindicate [these] rights that makes them litigate all over the place.' Schlanger said the court may decide to weigh-in on the substantive issue of birthright citizenship, focus on the issue of nationwide injunctions, or both. Sam Erman, another professor at the University of Michigan Law School, thinks it's 'highly unlikely' the Supreme Court will issue a ruling on birthright citizenship at this stage. Erman noted that the court has not had a full briefing on the issue of birthright citizenship. 'It would be a very hurried decision if they did it,' he said, 'and one where they would be sort of stripping themselves of a bunch of resources.' There's also the fact that this is largely considered a settled legal issue. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court established that children born in the United States to children of noncitizens are citizens. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898, is largely considered settled precedent. 'It's a pretty decided issue that the Supreme Court has itself basically presumed the result without giving it much thought in prior cases,' said Erman. 'The Supreme Court's precedent pretty much settles it. The history is all in one direction on it. The text is pretty clear.' But as shown by the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade, legal precedents can fall, said Kailin Wu, an attorney at Haynes Novick Kohn Immigration in Washington, D.C. 'The court is looking at opportunities to review previous decisions a lot more often now than they have been in the past, 'said Wu. 'I'm not going into oral arguments on Thursday feeling confident that this is going to come out in favor of maintaining the status quo.' Erman said it will also be worth watching how the court handles the secondary legal issue of nationwide injunctions. 'Some justices have been signaling for a while that [nationwide injunctions] ought to be reined in in some way,' said Erman. 'And this seems like a possible moment to do that.' 'One thing that's at stake is the separation of powers between the different branches of government.' On the flip side, justices could be concerned about maintaining the balance of power between the judiciary writ-large, Congress and the presidency. 'One thing that's at stake is the separation of powers between the different branches of government,' said Erman. 'In theory, it should be up to Congress to change the statutory scheme that grants birthright citizenship at birth, and it should only be the Supreme Court that gets to say what the constitutional law is.' Erman notes that outright banning nationwide injunctions, in this case, would get 'messy fast.' 'If they were to say, 'Well, now this only applies in the district where you filed,' you would suddenly have people filing in every district in the country all at once,' he said, 'or if you said this only applies to the individuals who filed, you'd get a flood of lawsuits by individuals seeking the same treatment.' This scenario, Schlanger said, would make it significantly harder for organizations to fight for civil rights because they would have to battle in every jurisdiction — potentially leaving the United States with a patchwork of different citizenship rules. 'There will be a bunch of states in which courts have said the birthright citizenship EO is illegal or ineffective … and then there will be other districts, other states, where that hasn't happened,' she explained. 'So you have different rules governing the citizenship rights of newborns depending on what state they were born in.' Wu said that his clients living in the U.S. on work visas are terrified about what the Trump administration's executive order could mean for their families. For example, Wu said that his clients on H-1B visas are sometimes here for 15 to 30 years before they receive their green cards. Now, it's unclear what could happen if they end up having children. 'Are their kids automatically going to get a [visa]? Are they going to need to apply for that? I think there are a lot of questions,' said Wu. 'You may end up in scenarios where people who are here on temporary status and who have kids who are born here are inevitably going to leave at some point.' Legal scholars said to watch whether justices ask more about birthright citizenship or nationwide injunctions as an indicator of which issue they're more likely to address. And as always, all eyes are on Chief Justice John Roberts, who is widely considered to be a swing vote on these issues. However, Erman said, regardless of how the justices eventually rule, it shouldn't be seen as an indicator that the Supreme Court is on the side of people fighting the administration. 'The administration is on very weak substantive ground here,' said Erman,'and so were the courts to uphold what the administration is trying to do. That's a strong signal that they're going to be, I think, deferential to lots of claims by the administration.' In Congress, Ramirez isn't holding out hope that her Republican colleagues will help her protect birthright citizenship. 'I've had some off-the-record conversations with a couple of them, who said, 'No, that's absolutely crazy, if you were born here, you're a United States citizen,'' she said. 'But the problem is, that has not actually been lived out in remarks or public statements.' Still, Ramirez thinks it's important to take a stand for this fundamental right. In addition to affirming the constitutional right of all children born in the United States to automatically obtain U.S. citizenship, the bill uses Congress's spending powers to block the administration's actions. The legislation would prohibit any federal funds from being used to carry out Trump's executive order. So even if the Supreme Court ruled that Trump could move forward implementing the executive order, his administration would be blocked from using federal funding to create new systems to identify who is or isn't a citizen, change someone's citizenship status, or deport them. If Ramirez's legislation can pass in the House and find backing in the Republican-controlled Senate, it would render Trump's campaign against birthright citizenship an order in name only. 'We're going to have a strong showing. Over 100 members of Congress are original co-sponsors to this bill,' said Ramirez. 'People are really riled up to fight back and understand that attempting to erode birthright citizenship is literally attempting to erode our democracy itself.' Join The Conversation
Epoch Times
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
C-SPAN Asks Supreme Court to Allow TV Coverage of Birthright Citizenship Case
C-SPAN is urging the Supreme Court to allow live video coverage of oral arguments next week regarding President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. On May 7, the public-affairs cable television network made public a Last month, the Supreme Court left in place lower court orders blocking Trump's policy of limiting birthright citizenship for certain individuals and 'This case holds profound national significance,' Feist wrote in the April 23 letter. 'Its implications—legal, political, and personal—will affect millions of Americans. In light of this, we believe the public interest is best served through live television coverage of the proceedings. The public deserves to witness—fully and directly—how such a consequential issue is argued before the highest court in the land.' Permitting live video coverage of the case would offer 'Americans outside the few seated inside the Court, the ability to also see how critical issues are debated and decided at the highest level,' he wrote. Related Stories 4/17/2025 3/13/2025 C-SPAN stands 'ready to work with the Court to ensure that this broadcast is conducted with the dignity and respect befitting the occasion,' Feist added. The Supreme Court currently provides a live audio feed of oral arguments on its website and is expected to do so on May 15. Members of the public may Trump's Executive Order 14160, signed on Jan. 20, In filings for the appeal, the Department of Justice did not ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself, although it acknowledged that the birthright citizenship question raises 'important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border.' Instead, the department made what it called a 'modest' request. 'While the parties litigate weighty questions, the Court should 'restrict the scope' of multiple preliminary injunctions that 'purport to cover every person ... in the country,' limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts' power,' it wrote. According to Trump's executive order, an individual born in the United States is not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' if that person's mother was unlawfully present in the country and the individual's father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the person's birth. It also states that the privilege of U.S. citizenship does not apply to an individual whose mother's presence was lawful but temporary and whose father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of that individual's birth. The executive order prompted debate over the meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, which states, '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.' Critics of Trump's order have cited the Supreme Court's landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which the court held that the 14th Amendment granted birthright citizenship to a Chinese man whose parents were legally present in the United States. In CASA Inc. v. Trump, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman of Maryland Boardman wrote that she was issuing a nationwide injunction against the executive order because 'only a nationwide injunction will provide complete relief to the plaintiffs' in the case. Nationwide injunctions, also known as non-party or universal injunctions, set policy for the entire country. Such injunctions have become controversial in recent years as they have become increasingly common. Since Trump began his second term, multiple federal district judges have issued injunctions blocking his policies, leading to calls from congressional Republicans to impeach district judges and restrict their injunction-granting powers. On April 9, the House The Epoch Times reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office for comment on the letter. No reply was received by publication time.
Epoch Times
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Justice Jackson Says Trump's Criticisms of Judges Are ‘Attacks on Our Democracy'
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said on May 1 that President Donald Trump's criticism of some judges seemed 'designed to intimidate the judiciary.' Jackson did not specifically mention Trump during her speech but spoke about 'the elephant in the room.' 'The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity,' Jackson said at the First Circuit Judicial Conference in Rio Grande, Puerto Rico, on May 1. 'The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.' Jackson took her seat on the high court in June 2022 after being nominated by President Joe Biden. Several federal judges have said the Trump administration has not complied with various court orders on federal spending, the firing of government employees, and foreign aid. The administration denies that it disobeyed the orders and has criticized judges who have halted its policy actions, in some cases calling for the judges to be impeached. Related Stories 5/1/2025 4/8/2025 Jackson's comments followed a public statement by Chief Justice John Roberts on March 18 after Trump called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who was confirmed in 2011 after being nominated by President Barack Obama. Boasberg 'For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,' Roberts Later that month, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) introduced a resolution in the House to impeach Boasberg. 'We cannot stand by while activist judges who incorrectly believe they have more authority than the duly-elected President of the United States, impose their own political agenda on the American people,' Biggs said in a Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is Trump's Executive Order 14160, signed on Jan. 20, In the court filings, the Department of Justice did not ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself, although it acknowledged that the birthright citizenship question raises 'important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border.' Instead, the department made what it called a 'modest' request to contain the coverage of court injunctions within the parties in the lawsuits. 'While the parties litigate weighty questions, the Court should 'restrict the scope' of multiple preliminary injunctions that 'purport to cover every person ... in the country,' limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts' power,' it wrote. Nationwide injunctions, also known as non-party or universal injunctions, set policy for the entire country. Such injunctions issued by judges have become controversial in recent years as they have become increasingly common. On April 9, the House Wielding national injunctions in that way 'undermines the system of government,' the bill's sponsor, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), said on the House floor on April 8. Sam Dorman contributed to this report.
