Trump tries to end birthright citizenship with an executive order (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    I think this deserves its own thread. Perhaps we can try to migrate discussion from the other thread to this one.

    Here is the Executive Order:


    The order presents itself on existing good-ground to exclude children of unlawful immigrants, but that's false - the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not have an ambiguous history.

    Twenty-two states and others filed immediate lawsuits to suspend and ultimately rescind the order.

     
    Imagine you are pregnant. You live in Texas and will be giving birth this summer. Meanwhile, your friend is also pregnant and is scheduled to have her baby the very same day as you—except she lives in Maryland.

    Both of you are either undocumented or on a temporary visa, but because you live in Texas your newborn may be ineligible to receive U.S. citizenship, rendering them stateless. Over in Maryland, your friend’s baby will become a U.S. citizen, benefiting from social services only offered to people with a Social Security number.

    You’re probably wondering: How is that fair?

    It’s a scenario that the Supreme Court is grappling with as it deliberates on Trump v. CASA, a case that will determine the lawfulness of the three nationwide injunctions currently preventing President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order from taking effect.

    Last week, the federal government argued it wants to limit those injunctions to only the plaintiffs suing—22 states and Washington, D.C., two immigrant rights groups, and four pregnant women—because it believes lower courts should not have universal authority to dictate the executive branch’s policy.

    If the justices rule in favor of Trump, it could create a world in which babies born to undocumented immigrants (and those here on temporary visas) in nearly half of U.S. states would not receive birthright citizenship.

    That’s despite many of the justices suggesting that Trump’s executive order, on its merits, is most likely unconstitutional.

    But that’s not the issue they’ve tasked themselves with solving for now; instead, they accepted the Trump administration’s request to exclusively consider the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued against the policy.

    I talked to Elora Mukherjee, clinical law professor at Columbia University and director of the school’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, to understand how the president’s executive order would work in practice, if the justices rule that the current nationwide injunctions cannot stand and must be limited to the plaintiffs.

    Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

    Shirin Ali: If the Trump administration gets its way and we end up in a scenario where the plaintiffs, 22 states and Washington, D.C., get to continue honoring birthright citizenship, while the rest of the states don’t, couldn’t people just travel to the plaintiff states as a workaround?

    Elora Mukherjee:
    The administration has purposely avoided arguing to the Supreme Court that its interpretation of the 14th Amendment is correct, because it knows it would lose that question on the merits. But a ruling from the Supreme Court that the nationwide injunction can’t stand would nevertheless have dramatic and far-reaching consequences.

    The executive order ending birthright citizenship could be enforced in some states, while remaining states could block it, and that would create a fragmented and chaotic citizenship across the country.

    And as you’re suggesting, babies born on the same day could be citizens in one state, but stateless in the other. That would destabilize families, overwhelm local governments, and invite a flood of costly legal battles. In terms of whether a pregnant person could cross state lines before giving birth, maybe.

    They could, but that would privilege pregnant people who have access to resources, information about the legal system, a place to stay once they cross state lines so that they can give birth safely, and medical care once they do so. For many people with limited resources, it won’t be possible to cross state lines.

    New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum was explaining to the court that every year, about 6,000 babies cross state lines and come into the state of New Jersey, and the state needs to do citizenship verification for all of those babies. Justice Sotomayor chimed in and noted it’s not just the state of New Jersey; it would be the same in the 22 states collectively that are participating in this litigation and challenging the executive order.

    Feigenbaum agreed and explained that a lack of nationwide injunctive relief in citizenship would undermine the ability of the plaintiff states to process benefits for eligible children and families. The federal government requires Social Security numbers to be provided for the administration of benefits. Babies born outside of the plaintiff states might arrive in a plaintiff state without a Social Security number, and the burden would be on the plaintiff state to figure out how to administer benefits.

    Plaintiff states would also incur substantially more costs to get them enrolled, as Feigenbaum argued. As a nation, we haven’t had citizenship turn on crossing states since the Civil War, and it’s not clear how this would work on the ground at all.

    Knowing that the Trump administration is in the midst of an aggressive immigration crackdown, is it possible that a baby born in a plaintiff state who then travels to a non-plaintiff state could end up being subject to arrest, detention, and even deportation?

    It is certainly conceivable that the executive branch, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and others at the highest echelons of our executive branch, once a baby crosses state lines, they may lose their U.S. citizenship. We can imagine that a baby is born in Maryland, one of the plaintiff states that’s covered by an injunction right now, and they move to Texas. They may be subject to immigration enforcement actions, correctly or incorrectly, maybe due to racial profiling or something else. Once that baby is arrested on the way to being deported from the United States, how will that baby explain that they were actually granted U.S. citizenship in Maryland?

    What we’ve seen is an executive branch that is intent on rapidly deporting people from the United States without offering them any meaningful due process. We’ve already had many hundreds of people wrongly deported from the United States since Jan. 20, and U.S. citizens are regularly deported wrongly from the United States already. If the executive order is not enjoined nationwide, the risk of error dramatically multiplies..................

    The simple answer to the problem is to file suit if a state refuses to issue proper documentation. There are immigration social service agencies that would jump all over something like this. This is something the District Courts would resolve rather quickly.
     
    The simple answer to the problem is to file suit if a state refuses to issue proper documentation. There are immigration social service agencies that would jump all over something like this. This is something the District Courts would resolve rather quickly.

    That's not an argument for removing a national injunction when the actions of Trump's administration are clearly illegal and unconstitutional, such as in this birthright citizenship case. You're just making an argument for allowing clearly illegal and unconstitutional activity by the government, les a lawsuit is filed.

    There is no judicial overreach here, just plain judicial common sense by the district court.
     
    That's not an argument for removing a national injunction when the actions of Trump's administration are clearly illegal and unconstitutional, such as in this birthright citizenship case. You're just making an argument for allowing clearly illegal and unconstitutional activity by the government, les a lawsuit is filed.

    There is no judicial overreach here, just plain judicial common sense by the district court.
    Simply pointing out the natural legal process.
     
    Simply pointing out the natural legal process.

    This is the natural legal process. It's the Trump administration that wants to subvert the natural legal process with its novel interpretation of the law.
     
    That's not an argument for removing a national injunction when the actions of Trump's administration are clearly illegal and unconstitutional, such as in this birthright citizenship case. You're just making an argument for allowing clearly illegal and unconstitutional activity by the government, les a lawsuit is filed.

    There is no judicial overreach here, just plain judicial common sense by the district court.

    I read quite a bit of post-analysis from the oral argument, and it does seem like a majority of the Court was quite skeptical of the argument that Article III does not authorize a district court to issue nationwide injunctions. And it seemed a majority was outright hostile to the government's likelihood of success on the merits - which is a finding required for the injunction (or overturning it).

    We might end up with the opposite of what some speculated about (that the Court will issue a narrow ruling on the injunction question and avoid the 14A issue) and see the Court crafting a ruling that upholds the injunction(s) here based on the clear result that the USA is not likely to succeed on the merits - and then leave the broad question of nationwide injunctions themselves alone. I think the Court recognizes that the impact of outlawing nationwide injunctions not only requires a massive proliferation of lawsuits and judicial activity, but also proliferates harm. The better approach is to leave it to the appellate process.
     
    I read quite a bit of post-analysis from the oral argument, and it does seem like a majority of the Court was quite skeptical of the argument that Article III does not authorize a district court to issue nationwide injunctions. And it seemed a majority was outright hostile to the government's likelihood of success on the merits - which is a finding required for the injunction (or overturning it).

    We might end up with the opposite of what some speculated about (that the Court will issue a narrow ruling on the injunction question and avoid the 14A issue) and see the Court crafting a ruling that upholds the injunction(s) here based on the clear result that the USA is not likely to succeed on the merits - and then leave the broad question of nationwide injunctions themselves alone. I think the Court recognizes that the impact of outlawing nationwide injunctions not only requires a massive proliferation of lawsuits and judicial activity, but also proliferates harm. The better approach is to leave it to the appellate process.
    Oh I would be very happy with this result.
     
    “Held: Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that


    Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Govern-


    ment’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.”

     
    No they aren’t.
    That’s just your opinion. If they allow these court stays to go away, there will be babies born here who are denied citizenship by localities. Am I wrong about that?
     
    “Held: Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that


    Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Govern-


    ment’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.”

    This has the effect of letting his executive order denying citizenship to go into effect, depending on the location, correct?
     
    Welp, the ruling today signals the bought and paid for members of the Court are open to ending birthright citizenship.







    dont listen to idiots like this. they dont know the law.

    They are just doing what they normally do. We havent exhausted every legal remedy available....yet.
     



    dont listen to idiots like this. they dont know the law.

    They are just doing what they normally do. We havent exhausted every legal remedy available....yet.

    30 days isn’t much time to stop it and SCOTUS knows that. If they truly wanted to affirm birthright citizenship they could have easily done so.

    That they didn’t tells me everything I need to know.
     


    Let say it is stopped by other means, won't this end up right back at the Supreme Court?

    Or, if it isn't stopped it'll be challenged and end up in the Supreme Court

    Since it's going to end up in front of the Supreme Court for a final ruling anyway why go through the whole 'other means' process and just make a final ruling?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom