Latest news with #NationalityAct
American Military News
11 hours ago
- Politics
- American Military News
Supreme Court hands Trump ‘Giant Win' in birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a 'GIANT WIN' on Friday by ruling against 'universal injunctions' and limiting court injunctions after a lower court issued a preliminary injunction against the president's executive order blocking birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. In a 6-3 ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court wrote, 'Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.' In Friday's ruling, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett claimed that the 'universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent' for the majority of U.S. history. 'Its absence from 18th- and 19th-century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority,' Barrett wrote. 'That the absence continued into the 20th century renders any claim of historical pedigree still more implausible.' Barrett explained that the Supreme Court's ruling does not address whether the president's executive order on birthright citizenship violates the Nationality Act of the Citizenship Clause. Instead, Barrett said the issue presented to the Supreme Court 'is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.' READ MORE: Supreme Court issues major deportation ruling Barrett added, 'A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power.' In a concurring opinion, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that the court's decision will now require district courts throughout the country to 'follow proper legal procedures' with regard to injunctions. 'Most significantly, district courts can no longer award preliminary nationwide or classwide relief except when such relief is legally authorized,' Kavanaugh stated. Following Friday's Supreme Court ruling, Trump issued a statement on Truth Social, saying, 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process.' Vice President J.D. Vance also released a statement regarding the Supreme Court's decision, describing it as a 'huge ruling.' Vance claimed that the ruling will stop the 'ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions' that Democrat judges have used to continually block the president's executive orders. 'Under our system, everyone has to follow the law–including judges!' Vance tweeted.
Fox News
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
SCOTUS rules on Trump's birthright citizenship order, testing lower court powers
The Supreme Court granted a partial stay Friday of President Donald Trump's request to block lower courts from issuing universal injunctions, granting a par victory for the administration as it looks to execute many of its top priorities via executive order and action. Justices ruled 6-3 to allow the lower courts to issue injunctions in certain cases. "The applications do not raise—and thus we do not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act," Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority. "The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions." "A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power," she added. The Supreme Court agreed in April to hear the consolidated cases, which focused on three lower court judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state who issued "universal" injunctions against Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. But that wasn't the main focus of the appeal, or the May 15 oral arguments before the high court. Rather, the justices considered whether lower courts should have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions at all, or whether doing so exceeds their authority, as argued by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer. The ruling is expected to have sweeping implications for U.S. district courts, and comes at a time when presidents, including both Democrat and Republican administrations, have sought to use executive orders as a means of sidestepping a clunky, slow-moving Congress. Federal judges across the country have blocked Trump's ban on transgender persons serving in the U.S. military, ordered the reinstatement of core functions of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID and halted Elon Musk's government efficiency organization, DOGE, from oversight and access to government agencies, among other things. Justices across the ideological spectrum appeared to agree during oral arguments this month that the use of universal injunctions has surged in recent years — but after more than two hours, remained split on how to proceed. No easy solution emerged to the thorny legal problem, as the justices wrestled with a tangle of procedural questions over whether to scale back the use of universal injunctions and what legal standard should govern them. Sauer argued that lower court judges have used universal injunctions to act beyond their authority and block the lawful powers of a sitting president. But Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that blocking or limiting lower court injunctions could invite hundreds or thousands of new individual lawsuits. "Your theory here is arguing that Article III and principles of equity [clause] both prohibit federal courts from issuing universal injunctions to have your argument," she said later, adding: "If that's true, that means even the Supreme Court doesn't have that power." Justice Elena Kagan, meanwhile, pointed out the practical challenge of expecting the Supreme Court to weigh in on every issue now handled by lower courts, which have already faced hundreds of federal lawsuits during Trump's second term. She also noted to Sauer that the Trump administration has lost every federal lawsuit challenging the birthright citizenship executive order, including under judges Trump appointed during his first term. As expected, several conservative justices on the court, including Justice Clarence Thomas, expressed criticism of universal injunctions. New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum, representing the states, acknowledged that there could be alternative remedies for federal courts other than nationwide injunctions — though he suggested that in certain cases, the class action alternative presented by the Trump administration may not move fast enough to grant relief in certain cases. "We are sympathetic to some of the concerns the United States has about percolation, about running the table in particular cases," he said. "We just don't think that that supports a bright line rule that says they're never available." Roberts and Sotomayor questioned Feigenbaum more in depth on how to determine in what cases universal injunction should not be the preferred remedy and how to ensure district courts are following that. Lawyers for the Trump administration asked the high court to review the case earlier this year, arguing that the three lower courts, each of which blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order from taking force nationwide, acted beyond the scope of their authority. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer stressed this point during oral arguments earlier this month, telling justices that universal injunctions "require judges to make rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions." "They operate asymmetrically, forcing the government to win everywhere," he said, and "invert," in the Trump administration's view, the ordinary hierarchical hierarchy of appellate review. The Supreme Court decision will have sweeping implications, both in the near- and longer-term, with knock-down effects on the the more than 300 federal lawsuits that have challenged White House actions since Trump's second presidency began on Jan. 20, 2025. This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
22-05-2025
- General
Becoming Japanese: Questions of Citizenship and Ethnicity
Kikajin ('naturalized citizen') is a term used to describe people who have transferred their citizenship to Japan from another country. In legal language, the precise term under Japan's Nationality Act is kikasha ('naturalized person'), which is used in administrative procedures. A few years ago, I naturalized and thus became a Japanese citizen. In ancient Japanese, the term kika signified conforming to the laws of the nation and obeying its ruler. The act of applying for naturalization and obtaining Japanese nationality, and persons who did so, were sometimes referred to with negative connotations. Consequently, many newspapers instead use expressions such as 'persons who have obtained Japanese citizenship' or 'persons holding Japanese citizenship.' In recent years, more foreign nationals are apparently showing interest in obtaining Japanese citizenship. According to data released by the Ministry of Justice, the cumulative number of people approved for naturalization up through 2024 was 610,208, some 80 percent of whom were Korean or Chinese. In the past, naturalization required a person to adopt a Japanese name, and the application had to be made by the head of the household, rather than the individual in question. But now, there is no obligation to take a Japanese-style name. Administrative requirements for naturalization have been relaxed somewhat, influenced by global trends, and impacted by the issues of Japan's aging population and declining birthrate. But some draw a distinction between obtaining Japanese citizenship and becoming Japanese. More precisely, even if one obtains Japanese citizenship, society does not necessarily acknowledge that person as Japanese. Naturally, in legal terms, upon obtaining Japanese citizenship, one possesses all of the rights and obligations of any Japanese national, but it does not necessarily mean an end to being considered a foreigner. Some years ago, I conducted a survey asking 400 young people (aged 18–21) 'Can you become Japanese by obtaining Japanese citizenship?' to which over 95% responded 'No.' If nationality is not the line separating 'foreigner' from 'Japanese,' it leads to the question of what is the basis for definition. Many survey respondents listed their criteria for deciding whether someone was Japanese or foreign as 'external appearance,' 'name,' and so on. For the average Japanese person, it would seem odd for 'Almoamen, the Egyptian' to have a Japanese name like Tanaka or Kamikawa. This is why many naturalized citizens choose to use the same name as before. Strangely, society seems to take a different attitude when athletes and other famous people naturalize, willingly accepting them as Japanese. This contradictory phenomenon is an issue we tend to avoid. We gloss over it with catchphrases such as 'One world,' 'A world without borders or discrimination,' and 'A world where culture and civilization blend together.' Although people may outwardly support such positions, some still categorize others in superficial, geographical terms. Naturalized people are faced with an identity crisis due to 'being citizens while not being Japanese.' How do we regard other people and how do we appear to them? These are questions we should ask ourselves. (Originally published in Japanese. Banner photo: Renowned scholar of Japanese literature Donald Keene receives a bouquet of flowers from a municipal official in Kita, Tokyo, after being granted Japanese citizenship on March 8, 2012. He took the occasion to announce that he had adopted a Japanese name written in kanji to phonetically represent 'Keene Donald.' © Kyōdō.)
AFP
14-05-2025
- Politics
- AFP
Overseas voters in S. Korea polls must provide documentation proving nationality
"Even foreigners can vote as long as they have an email address!" reads a Korean-language Threads post shared on May 3. "It's outright suspicious." The post included screenshots from the website of the National Election Commission (NEC), showing the overseas voters' registration page where applicants are asked to enter their email address. One of the screenshots contains a statement from the election watchdog: "The National Election Commission is conducting email address validity checks to prevent potential -- such as not being registered on the voter list or being unable to receive election information -- that may result from entering incorrect email addresses." Image Screenshot of the false Threads post, captured on May 8, 2025 South Korea, which has been effectively leaderless since Yoon was suspended and officially removed from office over his disastrous declaration of marital law, will head to the polls on June 3 (archived link). Overseas voting, however, will take place earlier, from May 20 to 25, to allow enough time for ballots to be returned and counted alongside domestic votes (archived here and here). As Yoon defended his botched martial bid, he rehashed unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud -- long circulated among far-right conspiracy theorists in South Korea -- triggering a surge of misinformation online targeting the NEC (archived link). Similar posts were shared elsewhere on Threads, X and South Korean online forum DC Inside, as well as in English. "Election fraud is underway. Overseas voting only requires a valid email address," read a comment on one of the posts. "Doesn't this mean the Chinese can manipulate the election?" asked another user. Image Screenshot from the National Election Commission's website The overseas voter registration form requires applicants to provide personal information, including their passport number, place of birth and current residence. At the bottom of the form, applicants must sign a declaration that reads: "I hereby confirm myself as a citizen of the Republic of Korea in accordance with the Nationality Act… and agree to the utilization of my personal information, such as family relation, resident registration, criminal record, and passport for confirming my voting rights." Image Screenshot of the statement at the bottom of the overseas voter registration form In addition, overseas voters must present "documentation of nationality confirmation" at the overseas polling stations to prove they have "not acquired foreign nationality", according to the NEC (archived link). A representative from the commission said on May 12 the claim is "completely " explaining that email validity checks prevent applicants from entering invalid email addresses and "prevent malicious, indiscriminate online applications while enabling applicants to receive registration results and election information". She told AFP the commission uses official records held by relevant institutions such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court to verify whether applicants have the right to vote.
Korea Herald
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Korea Herald
Court denies dual citizenship application, citing 'birth tourism'
A Seoul court has supported the rejection of an application for dual US-South Korean citizenship because their parent's residence in the US was for the purpose of their child gaining US citizenship. The Seoul Administrative Court said Monday that it had ruled in favor of the Seoul Southern Immigration Office, which rejected the plaintiff's February 2024 application to retain the citizenships of both countries. South Korea's Nationality Act states that a child of a citizen obtains citizenship at birth, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution grants citizenship to anyone born inside its territories. This means that someone born in the US to parents who are Korean citizens — as in case of the plaintiff — is granted dual citizenships at birth. Dual citizens at birth are usually allowed to retain the nationality of South Korea and another country by pledging to the government not to exercise the rights of foreign citizenship before the age of 22, or within two years of completing their mandatary military service in the case of men. This is to prevent dual citizens from dodging duties mandated for South Koreans, such military service. But the immigration office refused to allow dual citizenship to the plaintiff, saying that the plaintiff's mother is thought to have lived in the US only for the explicit purpose of obtaining US citizenship for her child — sometimes referred to as "birth tourism." The Nationality Act states that in cases where the parent is "deemed to have resided in a foreign country for the purpose of having the person acquire the nationality of the foreign country," the child can retain his or her South Korean citizenship only after renouncing the other nationality. The plaintiff's mother went to the US in 2003 just before giving birth to the plaintiff, staying in the country for a month and a half. She went back to the US in 2011 and lived for four months since then. "There are substantial grounds to believe (that the plaintiff's mother) gave birth in a foreign country, with the intent to have the child gain the citizenship there," the court said in its verdict. The plaintiff denied that the mother's stay in the US was for the purpose of ensuring her child had US citizenship, saying that she lived for four years in the country overall. The Article 17-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Nationality Act does state that a person who lived for two or more years in a country and gave birth there cannot be considered as having conducted birth tourism. But the court said this clause applies to parents who stayed for two consecutive years at the time of the birth of the child. "The Nationality Act of this country had applied strict single nationality principle, and has only allowed dual citizenship on a limited number of cases since 2010. If the court interprets the article (Article 17-3) as the plaintiff claims, we cannot achieve the act's goal of preventing birth tourism," the court went on to say.
