Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Donald Trump’s urge to end the citizenship of the birthright, is led to the American Supreme Court, in a case that could help promote his agenda on immigration and other issues.
The court hears arguments on Thursday about whether judges of the lower court can block presidential orders for the entire country.
Trump moved to the termination of the citizenship of birthright within a few hours of returning to the White House in January and signed an order that said that children born in the US would not be civilians without papers.
Three federal judges stopped to come into effect, part of a pattern of courts that block the executive orders of Trump. Trump claims that they did not have the power to issue the national orders.
If the Supreme Court agrees with Trump, he could continue his broad use of executive orders to fulfill the campaign blows without having to wait for approval of the congress, with limited checks by the courts.
It is unusual that the Supreme Court will hold a hearing in May and there is no indications of when it can rule. In his first term, Trump mentioned three of the nine judges on the Conservative Majority Court.
Many legal experts say that the president does not have the authority to terminate the citizenship of the birthright, because it is guaranteed by the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. So, even if Trump wins the current matter, he may still have to fight other legal challenges.
In particular, the 14th amendment determines that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and are subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens”.
In the executive order, Trump argued that the expression “jurisdiction thereof” meant that citizenship automatically did not apply to the children of immigrants without papers or people in the country temporarily.
However, federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington have issued national – or universal – orders that blocked the order to be maintained.
The orders, in turn, led the Trump government to claim that the lower courts surpassed their powers.
“Universal orders have achieved epidemic proportions since the start of the current government,” the government said in a court in March. “Members of this court have long acknowledged the need to regulate the legality of universal orders.”
Earlier this week, a official from the Ministry of Justice said reporters that judicial orders “fundamentally cross trees” Trump’s assets to implement his policy agenda, and that the administration regards this as a “direct attack” on the presidency.
The case that is heard in the Supreme Court comes from three separate lawsuits, both from proponents of immigration and 22 US states.
The Trump government has asked the court to decide that the orders can only apply to those immigrants mentioned in the case or the claimant states – so that the government could at least partially carry out the order of Trump, even while legal fighting continues.
According to the Ministry of Justice, almost 40 different judicial orders have been submitted since the start of the second government Trump.
In a separate case, two lower courts blocked the Trump government to enforce a military transgender ban, although the Supreme Court eventually intervened and allowed the policy to be maintained.
An end – even a partial – of the citizenship of the birthright could influence tens of thousands of children in the US, with one of the lawsuits claiming that “the second class would impose status” to a generation of people born and lived alone, in the US.
Alex Cuic, an immigration lawyer and professor at the Western Reserve University Case in Ohio, told the BBC that a potential end to the citizenship of the birthright could force some of these children to become without papers or even “stateless”.
“There is no guarantee that the countries where their parents come from would take them back,” he said. “It would not even be clear where the government could deport them.”
