3 hours ago
1
America First Legal filed 2 amicus briefs this week successful enactment of President Donald Trump’s enforcement bid ending birthright citizenship for the children of amerciable immigrants.
The steadfast filed the briefs connected behalf of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and 17 different committee members.
Despite determination being nearly 2 twelve Democrat-run states and civilian rights groups suing to halt the bid and two national judges ruling to temporarily artifact it, America First is arguing that determination is simply a wide law ground for denying citizenship to amerciable migrants who person breached the country’s migration laws.
'BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL': US JUDGE TEMPORARILY BLOCKS TRUMP'S BAN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
Trump’s bid titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" states that "the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically widen to persons calved successful the United States" erstwhile that person’s parents are either unlawfully contiguous successful the U.S. oregon erstwhile the parents’ beingness is lawful but temporary.
The briefs — which were filed successful the national courts for the Western District of Washington and the District of Massachusetts — argue that based connected the "text and history" of the 14th Amendment, the Constitution does not confer citizenship connected the children of unlawfully contiguous aliens. The briefs assertion that citizenship successful the U.S. is simply a governmental right, not an automatic entitlement.
The 14th Amendment was passed successful 1868 and was designed to widen citizenship to African-American erstwhile slaves. The amendment states that "all persons calved oregon naturalized successful the United States, and taxable to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Dan Epstein, vice president of America First Legal, told Fox News Digital that the operation "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that citizens indispensable beryllium their governmental allegiance to the U.S., not immoderate overseas powerfulness oregon culture. He said that Trump’s bid would reconstruct the law rule that lone those who are taxable to the jurisdiction of the U.S. — that is loyal, law-abiding Americans — are citizens.
"This enforcement bid is law and legally valid," said Epstein. "The Constitution makes wide that it is not the ‘natural calved national clause.’ It is simply a ‘natural calved and taxable to the jurisdiction thereof clause.' And we can't conscionable scratch retired ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ ‘Jurisdiction thereof’ means something; it means you are a loyal taxable to American jurisdiction and if you're a disloyal taxable — which is intelligibly idiosyncratic whose parents entered present illegally — it means you don't judge successful the law."
CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE
"Congress has not specifically authorized that immoderate idiosyncratic calved to amerciable aliens connected U.S. ungraded is by explanation a citizen. That's obscurity successful the statute," helium explained. "If Congress decided to walk a instrumentality and the courts said it was constitutional, and it said that, successful fact, if you're calved connected American soil, you're a citizen, well, then, we're bound by that instrumentality and the Supreme Courts and the national courts affirming that. But that's conscionable not the law."
Epstein said that the U.S. argumentation of extending citizenship to anyone calved connected U.S. soil, including those calved to amerciable immigrants, breaks with American contented and disrupts the regularisation of law.
"There’s a batch that hangs successful the equilibrium here," helium explained. "If we person an mentation of the 14th Amendment that says that anyone calved present is similar African-Americans who person a past of slavery oregon of unspeakable things, past we really dilute that American contented of enfranchising the rights of the descendants of erstwhile slaves and that is not what the 14th Amendment was designed to do."
Despite Trump’s enforcement bid being presently blocked, Epstein said that helium is optimistic that the Supreme Court volition yet regularisation successful Trump’s favor.
"My anticipation is that this is simply a no-brainer. The instrumentality is clear, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ has to mean something," helium said. "And whether you're looking astatine the legislative past of that operation oregon you're looking astatine however it's been applied — adjacent successful [U.S. vs.] Wong Kim Ark, the benignant of preeminent lawsuit connected this — makes wide that jurisdiction means allegiance. So, it's not a precise hard question. It's a precise wide question. And the instrumentality has a precise wide answer."
English (US) ·