Latest news with #undocumentedimmigrants
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill O'Reilly Bats for Trump to Pardon to 4-Year-Old Immigrant With Serious Illness: ‘Has to Be Exceptions'
Even Bill O'Reilly knows when enough is enough. The conservative commentator who has long supported strong border security went to bat this week for President Trump to issue humanitarian pardons to certain undocumented immigrants, using the example of a young child with a serious illness being treated at a Southern California hospital who was granted a pass by Homeland Security. 'I was happy to see this story,' the 'No Spin News' host said Friday. But first, some Biden-bashing: 'Thanks to President Biden, the FBI has spent more than a million manpower hours investigating problems stemming from the open border,' he said. 'Now, on Tuesday of this week alone, 2,200 illegal migrants were taken into custody,' he continued. 'That's a lot for one day. That's a 37% jump from the week prior. So, they're stepping up. ICE is stepping up its raids and … keeping them contained. They're not out on the street anymore. The White House is pleased. Trump wants this. That's why it's happening.' He also noted that since Trump has been president, there have been 67,000 undocumented migrants taken in and about 65,000 deported, but 'there are exceptions, or there should be, and there are.' 'Homeland Security, which controls ICE, has to make exceptions here,' he said. 'One of them is little Sophia Vargas, a four-year-old Mexican girl with a very serious illness. She's being treated in Southern California in a hospital there. Her mother, who took her across the border illegally in 2023, has been detained by ICE. But ICE is now giving the family a humanitarian waiver, which is the right thing to do. All right? We have to save this girl's life. 'Now, I would, if I were President Trump, pardon her. I'd say, 'You can stay on a humanitarian basis.' Nothing wrong with that. Sophia and her mom do not pose any danger to us, and it's a humanitarian thing.' Watch the monologue in the video above. The post Bill O'Reilly Bats for Trump to Pardon to 4-Year-Old Immigrant With Serious Illness: 'Has to Be Exceptions' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
CBS News
18-05-2025
- Health
- CBS News
Minnesota lawmakers confirm a special session is imminent on WCCO Sunday Mornings
Both Minnesota House Leaders Rep. Lisa Demuth and Rep. Melissa Hortman say the legislature will not meet Monday nights deadline and that a special session of the legislature will be needed to balance the state budget. What's at stake is the issue of health insurance for undocumented immigrants, which is dividing the DFL party and threatens the entire budget agreement. When legislative leaders and the governor announced the framework of a budget agreement last Thursday, protestors shouts could be heard from just outside the governor's reception room. But those weren't just any protestors, they were progressive DFL legislators furious that the deal to balance the budget included ending free medical insurance or MNCare for undocumented adults. Passed in 2023, the program went into effect this January and the initial numbers have soared. The original projection was that 5,700 undocumented residents would sign up, but so far this year more than 20,000 undocumented have signed up for MNCare. The deal does keeps insurance coverage in place for undocumented children. GOP House Speaker Lisa Demuth was a guest on WCCO Sunday Morning at 10:30 a.m. and said, "The expanse and the extension of the amount that is being paid by Minnesota taxpayer has exploded. People that are here can get health care if they need it. This is just how its being paid for they can purchase health insurance on the private market if they choose to on their own." DFL House Speaker Rep. Melissa Hortman is defending the deal, but with DFL defections likely can the deal survive? The Minnesota House is tied 67-67 and the DFL has a one vote majority in the Senate. Hortman says other major programs passed in 2023 have survived in this budget agreement, including two of the biggest paid safe and sick time and paid family and medical leave — two sweeping programs that will affect almost all workers in the state including those who work part-time. Hortman was also a guest on WCCO Sunday Morning at 10:30 a.m. and said, "It was a demand by the GOP to settle the budget. We fought really hard. We were in a room about 12 hours a day together from about April 30 to May 14 with the Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy and Governor and me fighting really hard to preserve this health care." Under state law the legislature must pass a balanced budget by the end of the legislative session. If they don't they will have to go into special session — the drop dead date is June 30. If no budget agreement is reached by then the state government will enter a government shutdown. That has not happened since 2011. With the slimmest of margins in both the Minnesota House and Senate it remains to be seen if the existing budget framework and its cut to adult undocumented health insurance can survive.
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What is US birthright citizenship and why is it being disputed at the supreme court?
As part of a sweeping crackdown on both undocumented and legal immigrants, Donald Trump signed an executive order on inauguration day that tries to end, for some, the right to US citizenship for children born in the United States. The order was blocked as 'blatantly unconstitutional', in one judge's opinion, after immediate legal challenges. Appeals failed and four months later the issue has made its way to the increasingly divided US supreme court as an emergency case. The administration is pressing it to allow Trump's restrictions to partially take effect, withholding citizenship for children born in the US without at least one parent being a legal permanent resident (green card holder) or US citizen. In a country where birthright citizenship regardless of lineage is a deeply held value, if the president succeeds in cutting off that right for future generations could create a permanent underclass, through policy change that would specifically target communities of color. That said, the crux of the administration's argument before the court during the oral session on 15 May actually focuses less on the principle of birthright citizenship and more on trying to curtail the power of lower-court judges – so that any injunctions are applied narrowly, not across the whole nation. If successful that would further Trump's agenda on immigration and a bevy of other issues, while birthright citizenship itself continues to be litigated. Here's what to know: When Trump and his allies reference birthright citizenship, they're usually alluding to the legal principle of jus soli – which means 'right of the soil' in Latin. Put simply, it allows nearly everyone born on US soil to become a US citizen. As a concept, jus soli comes from English common law, which held centuries ago that people born in England were natural subjects. But unrestricted birthright citizenship in the US that includes people of color – not just white Americans – derives from the US constitution. In 1857, the supreme court ruled that Black descendants of enslaved people could not be US citizens. To right this injustice, just over a decade later, the US ratified the 14th amendment. The first line of the 14th amendment reads: '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.' Known as the Citizenship Clause, this phrase – alongside a number of related statutes and regulations – establishes the modern basis for birthright citizenship. Even as the 14th amendment was ratified, Americans were starting to turn against immigrants in the US, especially Chinese workers. Soon, Congress had enacted legislation to heavily restrict further Chinese migration and make life difficult for those already stateside. Wong Kim Ark, a young man born in San Francisco to immigrant parents, went to China to see his family. When he tried to return home to the US, he wasn't allowed into the country based on the allegation that he wasn't a US citizen. But the supreme court saw the situation differently. In an 1898 precedential decision that has withstood the test of time, the justices ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark's US citizenship claim even though his parents were Chinese immigrants unable to naturalize. There are exceedingly rare exceptions to the principle of jus soli, where people born in the US are not automatically granted US citizenship. Until the enactment of a law in 1924, Indigenous peoples born in the US were excluded. In 2021, the supreme court decided that people born in American Samoa's unincorporated territories are not automatically guaranteed birthright citizenship, unless Congress enacts legislation. And the children of foreign diplomats – or, in a more violent scenario, the kids of enemy occupiers – also lack a right to US citizenship by birth. In comments criticizing the US's version of birthright citizenship, Trump has said: 'We have to end it. We're the only country that has it.' In fact, dozens of countries have a right to citizenship based on place of birth. Like the US, most of these countries are within the western hemisphere, including Canada and Mexico. That said, nowadays birthright citizenship is less common in other regions of the world. The executive order signed in January tries to make it so that children born in the US, but without at least one parent who is a lawful permanent resident or US citizen, are no longer automatically extended US citizenship. It also disallows federal agencies from issuing or recognizing documentation proving US citizenship for such children. Notably, the executive order targets kids born to both unauthorized immigrants and people legally in the US on temporary visas. Maybe – although probably not, and almost definitely not through executive order. The Citizenship Clause is part of the US constitution, the nation's founding document. Generally, legal scholars strongly suggest that neither executive action nor legislation should be able to supersede the constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship for those born on US soil. According to the Harvard Law professor Gerald Neuman: 'The president has no authority to change the citizenship rule at all. Congress can change the rule, but only to the extent of making it broader. Neither Congress nor the president can reduce it below the constitutional minimum.' However, because the legal precedent set by Wong well over a century ago is so fundamental to how birthright citizenship relates to the children of immigrants, the current court battles erupting from Trump's executive order could – in the most extreme scenario – jeopardize the US's understanding of birthright citizenship as we know it. In fact, forcing the supreme court to reinterpret the 14th amendment is probably part of the long game that the Trump administration is playing with its executive order, although we are not there yet. And even with the White House raring for a fight, a complete overhaul of case law around birthright citizenship remains improbable. The other way to override an existing part of the constitution would be to ratify another amendment, which would require a level of political support that is unlikely for such a fringe, rightwing issue. The justices are hearing arguments after three lower courts issued nationwide injunctions, pausing enforcement of Trump's executive order. So far, no newborns have had their right to US citizenship revoked by the policy change, thanks to these nationwide injunctions – which are viewed as controversial by some of the justices, from the conservative and liberal ends of the bench – that have been upheld on appeal. But Trump hopes to change that. Depending on what the majority opinion eventually says, the supreme court could be flirting with disaster for families across the nation. If, for example, the justices limit the current injunctions against Trump's executive order to only apply to people and entities involved in the lawsuits challenging the policy, that could create significant logistical issues. Babies born to immigrants at the same hospital may have different citizenship statuses, depending on whether their parents had the ability to engage an attorney and participate in litigation. Or a newborn in New Jersey could derive birthright citizenship, while one in Mississippi didn't. And the ensuing turmoil could render birth certificates essentially useless for proving US citizenship, even for children born to Americans. Even if the administration is unable to completely undo birthright citizenship for the children of certain immigrants, officials have reportedly been exploring other ways to tackle the topic. For instance, they could try to restrict short-term visas for pregnant travelers, so those travelers couldn't give birth in the US.
Washington Post
15-05-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
House GOP plan to raise child tax credit adds citizenship provisions
Republicans are pressing to boost the child tax credit — a bipartisan goal that would benefit more than 20 million households — in their bid to reshape the nation's tax code. But they've also attached provisions meant to cut off undocumented immigrants that would disqualify many U.S.-born children from the tax break and create complications for some married filers who are both citizens and usually file separately.
The Guardian
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
What is US birthright citizenship and why is it being disputed at the supreme court?
As part of a sweeping crackdown on both undocumented and legal immigrants, Donald Trump signed an executive order on inauguration day that tries to end, for some, the right to US citizenship for children born in the United States. The order was blocked as 'blatantly unconstitutional', in one judge's opinion, after immediate legal challenges. Appeals failed and four months later the issue has made its way to the increasingly divided US supreme court as an emergency case. The administration is pressing it to allow Trump's restrictions to partially take effect, withholding citizenship for children born in the US without at least one parent being a legal permanent resident (green card holder) or US citizen. In a country where birthright citizenship regardless of lineage is a deeply held value, if the president succeeds in cutting off that right for future generations could create a permanent underclass, through policy change that would specifically target communities of color. That said, the crux of the administration's argument before the court during the oral session on 15 May actually focuses less on the principle of birthright citizenship and more on trying to curtail the power of lower-court judges – so that any injunctions are applied narrowly, not across the whole nation. If successful that would further Trump's agenda on immigration and a bevy of other issues, while birthright citizenship itself continues to be litigated. Here's what to know: When Trump and his allies reference birthright citizenship, they're usually alluding to the legal principle of jus soli – which means 'right of the soil' in Latin. Put simply, it allows nearly everyone born on US soil to become a US citizen. As a concept, jus soli comes from English common law, which held centuries ago that people born in England were natural subjects. But unrestricted birthright citizenship in the US that includes people of color – not just white Americans – derives from the US constitution. In 1857, the supreme court ruled that Black descendants of enslaved people could not be US citizens. To right this injustice, just over a decade later, the US ratified the 14th amendment. The first line of the 14th amendment reads: '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.' Known as the Citizenship Clause, this phrase – alongside a number of related statutes and regulations – establishes the modern basis for birthright citizenship. Even as the 14th amendment was ratified, Americans were starting to turn against immigrants in the US, especially Chinese workers. Soon, Congress had enacted legislation to heavily restrict further Chinese migration and make life difficult for those already stateside. Wong Kim Ark, a young man born in San Francisco to immigrant parents, went to China to see his family. When he tried to return home to the US, he wasn't allowed into the country based on the allegation that he wasn't a US citizen. But the supreme court saw the situation differently. In an 1898 precedential decision that has withstood the test of time, the justices ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark's US citizenship claim even though his parents were Chinese immigrants unable to naturalize. There are exceedingly rare exceptions to the principle of jus soli, where people born in the US are not automatically granted US citizenship. Until the enactment of a law in 1924, Indigenous peoples born in the US were excluded. In 2021, the supreme court decided that people born in American Samoa's unincorporated territories are not automatically guaranteed birthright citizenship, unless Congress enacts legislation. And the children of foreign diplomats – or, in a more violent scenario, the kids of enemy occupiers – also lack a right to US citizenship by birth. In comments criticizing the US's version of birthright citizenship, Trump has said: 'We have to end it. We're the only country that has it.' In fact, dozens of countries have a right to citizenship based on place of birth. Like the US, most of these countries are within the western hemisphere, including Canada and Mexico. That said, nowadays birthright citizenship is less common in other regions of the world. The executive order signed in January tries to make it so that children born in the US, but without at least one parent who is a lawful permanent resident or US citizen, are no longer automatically extended US citizenship. It also disallows federal agencies from issuing or recognizing documentation proving US citizenship for such children. Notably, the executive order targets kids born to both unauthorized immigrants and people legally in the US on temporary visas. Maybe – although probably not, and almost definitely not through executive order. The Citizenship Clause is part of the US constitution, the nation's founding document. Generally, legal scholars strongly suggest that neither executive action nor legislation should be able to supersede the constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship for those born on US soil. According to the Harvard Law professor Gerald Neuman: 'The president has no authority to change the citizenship rule at all. Congress can change the rule, but only to the extent of making it broader. Neither Congress nor the president can reduce it below the constitutional minimum.' However, because the legal precedent set by Wong Kim Ark well over a century ago is so fundamental to how birthright citizenship relates to the children of immigrants, the current court battles erupting from Trump's executive order could – in the most extreme scenario – jeopardize the US's understanding of birthright citizenship as we know it. In fact, forcing the supreme court to reinterpret the 14th amendment is probably part of the long game that the Trump administration is playing with its executive order, although we are not there yet. And even with the White House raring for a fight, a complete overhaul of case law around birthright citizenship remains improbable. The other way to override an existing part of the constitution would be to ratify another amendment, which would require a level of political support that is unlikely for such a fringe, rightwing issue. The justices are hearing arguments after three lower courts issued nationwide injunctions, pausing enforcement of Trump's executive order. So far, no newborns have had their right to US citizenship revoked by the policy change, thanks to these nationwide injunctions – which are viewed as controversial by some of the justices, from the conservative and liberal ends of the bench – that have been upheld on appeal. But Trump hopes to change that. Depending on what the majority opinion eventually says, the supreme court could be flirting with disaster for families across the nation. If, for example, the justices limit the current injunctions against Trump's executive order to only apply to people and entities involved in the lawsuits challenging the policy, that could create significant logistical issues. Babies born to immigrants at the same hospital may have different citizenship statuses, depending on whether their parents had the ability to engage an attorney and participate in litigation. Or a newborn in New Jersey could derive birthright citizenship, while one in Mississippi didn't. And the ensuing turmoil could render birth certificates essentially useless for proving US citizenship, even for children born to Americans. Even if the administration is unable to completely undo birthright citizenship for the children of certain immigrants, officials have reportedly been exploring other ways to tackle the topic. For instance, they could try to restrict short-term visas for pregnant travelers, so those travelers couldn't give birth in the US.
