newYou can now listen to Fox News!
president Donald Trump It aims to end the ongoing citizenship in the United States – and the recent Supreme Court’s decision to reduce comprehensive orders made him one step of completing that task.
While changing the way the government gives citizenship for children born in the United States is still an arduous rise, the Supreme Court ruling has raised the possibility of entering the new Trump policy to end automatic citizenship, at least temporarily, in some parts of the country.
Lawyer Carrie Sevirino, head of the JCN Conservative Legal Call Group, said that it was not clear at this stage of litigation how Trump’s policy will work in a logistical aspect or who will be applied to it. the Supreme Court DecisionIt was issued on June 27, Trump’s executive was prevented from becoming active for 30 days.
“Usually, if you give birth to the hospital, they automatically issue a social security number,” Severo told Fox News Digital. “Now the question is not open and closes like this.”
Scotos rules on the order of citizenship in Trump, and testing the lower court powers
In dealing with the case of citizenship in the Trump administration, the Supreme Court dealt with a much wider issue regarding the authority of the federal judges. (Getty Images)
The Supreme Court’s decision arose from the various democratic and immigration rights groups that bring many lawsuits throughout the country that challenges the executive order of Trump, which the president signed shortly after his office.
It greatly changed the scope of the newly born citizenship, which was determined by the fourteenth amendment to the constitution and allows children born to non -citizens in the United States to automatically receive American citizenship in most cases.
The courts rejected Trump’s policy uniform and prohibited by issuing global judicial orders that apply to the entire country and not only some pregnant women who are represented in the court.
The federal judge at Seattle John Kognor, who is appointed to Reagan, prepared government lawyers during a February hearing on this issue.
“It has become clear that for our president, the rule of law is nothing but an obstacle to his political goals,” the judge said. “The rule of law, according to it, is something that must be moved or simply ignored, whether it is to achieve political or personal gains.”
Coughenour later said that if Trump wants to change a “exceptional American grant for consuming citizenship”, the president will need to work with Congress to amend the constitution, rather than trying to redefine amendment through an executive order.
What happens in the coming weeks?
In the wake of the Supreme Court order, the courts and prosecutors move quickly to adapt, and in some cases, you find solutions before the deadline arrives for 30 days.
Within hours of the Supreme Court’s decision, prosecutors who brought a lawsuit against citizenship in Maryland requested that the judge change the lawsuit to take collective action that covers all children who will be born after Trump’s executive order.
The request was one of the rapid requests of the court to test a judicial decision for the Supreme Court and may undermine it.
Leave the decision of the Supreme Court sound the ability of the judges, if they see that they are fit, to use lawsuits or lawsuits at the state level to hand over sweeping orders that prevent Trump’s policies from applying to large areas of people.
President Donald Trump’s advantages of President Donald Trump is on the right path to end in the Supreme Court. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
“The bottom line is that the Trump administration has the right to implement this matter at the country level, except in the event that the court remains in relation to the parties actually participating in a lawsuit challenging it,” said Sevirino.
American Immigration Council Michel Laboint He wrote online, there was a “real possibility” that if the judges who supervise the current cases did not find a way in the next few weeks to issue extensive judicial orders that prevent the newly born citizenship, some states may see that policy is valid.
“This raises the danger of children born in certain parts of the United States … they are fully stripped of their rights as American citizens, and perhaps even make them insecure,” Laboint wrote. “The human cost of such a procedure is unreasonable.”
Scotus-Rond, again
Regardless of what is happening in the coming weeks and months, the advantages behind the policy of birth citizenship in Trump are on the right path to end in the Supreme Court.
Judges were able to avoid touching the essence of Trump’s argument by merely looking at the constitutionality of comprehensive orders during this last round, but the next time that a citizenship claim in the field of birth comes in front of them, they are likely to have to influence whether Trump’s policy is constitutional.
President Donald Trump shakes him handing over by the President of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, in front of the Federation’s case speech in the Chamber of Representatives in 2020 in Washington. (Getty Images)
Severino said that she believes that the six judges appointed from the Republic are highly dependent on “history and traditions” and “what the words were understood in 1868 when the fourteenth amendment was passed.”
“It is a difficult problem, partly because our immigration system seems completely different now from what it was at the time of the fourteenth amendment, because the type of migration that we look was not really on their radar, and it was not the type of eligibility that we live in.”
Michael Morelland, a professor of law school at the University of Villanova, told Fox News Digital, it has long been an academic discussion about the language in the amendment. It states that children born in the United States and “vulnerable to its jurisdiction” are citizens. Moreland said the conflict may focus on “how wide or tight” to explain this item.
The Trump administration said that as part of the immigration campaign, it wants to reduce the abuse Fourteenth modificationWhich can include foreigners who travel to the United States strictly to give birth without any intention to settle in the country. The administration said that the amendment also stimulates migrants to illegally enter the country for birth and rewards for pregnant women who already live illegally in the country by transferring citizenship to their children.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Judges have yet found that Trump’s policy contradicts more than 150 years of precedent. The government has long gave citizenship to any child born in the United States with a few exceptions, such as children born to foreign diplomats or foreign military members.
“The balance of opinion has been for a long time, besides saying that the fourteenth amendment has a right to consuming citizenship,” said Morialand.
