ACLU, immigrant advocacy groups, sue Trump over birthright citizenship restrictions

[Michie]

A group of progressive organizations have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump over his executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are in the United States illegally.

The American Civil Liberties Union announced Monday that it and other advocacy groups have filed a complaint against the executive order in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

In addition to the ACLU and a few state chapters of the progressive legal group, other organizations involved in the litigation include the Asian Law Caucus, the State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the Legal Defense Fund. The groups are acting on behalf of the organizations New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, League of United Latin American Citizens, and Make the Road New York.

Continued below.

ACLU, immigrant advocacy groups, sue Trump over birthright citizenship restrictions

A group of progressive organizations have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump over his executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are in the United

www.christianpost.com

 

[PloverWing]

Good, and it's what I expected the ACLU to do. There is a formal process for amending the Constitution. It cannot be amended simply by executive order.

 

[prodromos]

From what I can see, the 14th amendment grants citizenship to children born of non US citizens who are legally resident in the United States. It does not grant citizenship to children born of people who are illegally present in the US.
Donald Trump's executive order, and the subsequent challenges to it will force the courts to make a decision which will make this clear.

 

[QvQ]

From what I can see, the 14th amendment grants citizenship to children born of non US citizens who are legally resident in the United States. It does not grant citizenship to children born of people who are illegally present in the US.
Donald Trump's executive order, and the subsequent challenges to it will force the courts to make a decision which will make this clear.

I agree.
This issue needs clarification.
There are foreign nationals who fly in, have a baby, then fly home.
They don't have any ties to this country whatsoever.
This is the start.
If the Court can't clarify this issue, then the Republicans will probably start proceedings to amend the Constiution.

 

[seeking.IAM]

No matter what we believe about birth right citizenship, we better figure out what we believe about a sitting U.S. President thinking he can over-rule the Constitution by Executive Order. I don't know about you, but that scares me and greatly changes the nature of the country we live in.

 

[QvQ]

No matter what we believe about birth right citizenship, we better figure out what we believe about a sitting U.S. President thinking he can over-rule the Constitution by Executive Order. I don't know about you, but that scares me and greatly changes the nature of the country we live in.

The only way to get an issue into the Courts is to pass a law or executive order.
The Courts will not consider an issue unless it is a law or executive order.
So Trump is not overruling the Constitution
He is doing the first step necessary to get this issue into the Courts
If the Courts decide that any one from anywhere can fly in, have a baby and that baby, flying home with mom 10 days later is forever afterwards a US citizen with all the rights and privileges thereof then
A Constitutional Amendment is in order

 

[Arcangl86]

From what I can see, the 14th amendment grants citizenship to children born of non US citizens who are legally resident in the United States. It does not grant citizenship to children born of people who are illegally present in the US.

Where are you seeing that distinction in the Amendment?

Donald Trump's executive order, and the subsequent challenges to it will force the courts to make a decision which will make this clear.

It's about as clear as it comes. This question has been settled law for over 125 years.

 

[seeking.IAM]

He is doing the first step necessary to get this issue into the Courts

I think it is not a Court issue, it is an issue of whether to amend the Constitution. Do you have any evidence of this beyond speculation or wishful thinking that this is his "first step?" His party controls both the House and the Senate. Would not a more appropriate route be for his asking Congress to propose an amendment for states' ratification.

 

[QvQ]

I think it is not a Court issue, it is an issue of whether to amend the Constitution. Do you have any evidence of this beyond speculation or wishful thinking that this is his "first step?" His party controls both the House and the Senate. Would not a more appropriate route be for his asking Congress to propose an amendment for states' ratification.

The first step is pass a law or an executive order.
Since it is the 14th Amendment it is a Constitutional question first.
Then rewrite the law or exective order to pass Constitutional review
Or amend the Constitution

Note that the 14th Amendment didn't confer citizenship to Native Americans, the Congress passed a law.
Therefore it might not require an Amendment. Merely a law passed in Congress.

There was this same problem about Income Tax. That is a direct tax and UnConstitutional.
1) Congress passed an income tax law
2) The Courts struck it down
3) The Legislatures amended the Constitution

So those are the steps to this question. First pass the law. Then have the Courts review. Then either have the legislature write a law that will pass Constitutional muster as they did for the Native Americans or amend the Constitution as was done with income tax.

It is exactly how our Constitutional process works
Trump has simply opened the ball.

 

[JSRG]

So, first, something important should be noted. Trump's executive order only applies to people born in the future (specifically, those born 30 days after it was made). Anyone born prior is unaffected by it. So, no, someone who previously thought themselves a citizen for being born in the US will still have that citizenship recognized. This only applies to future births.

However, another thing should be noted. Trump's executive order doesn't only apply to children of illegal immigrants, but also children of people who are here legally but are not permanent residents. Examples of "lawful but temporary" persons listed in the order are people "visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa". This thus goes considerably beyond the normal talking points about how children of illegal immigrants aren't citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause ("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"), but also asserts that even temporary visitors--including those who are actually here for a good while like a student visa--do not qualify.

For a lot of really good information about the Citizenship Clause--and, I think, a very strong argument that any reasonable originalist understanding of it means that children of anyone in the United States (aside from ambassadors/sovereigns, Indians on tribal land, and any occupying armies), regardless of their permanency or even legality of residence, are automatically citizens--I'd recommend the following law review article:

Originalism and Birthright Citizenship

The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are cit

papers.ssrn.com

Much of the earlier portion is actually focused on an analysis of what counts as "in the United States" but on page 436 it shifts to the question of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which is what matters here. It's a bit of a read, but it's got a whole lot of good information. (don't worry, the whole thing isn't 436+ pages, but because it's part of a journal the article starts on 405).

Or if someone wants a shorter version of argument (and focusing only on the question of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), there's this:

https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

 

[RileyG]

Good, and it's what I expected the ACLU to do. There is a formal process for amending the Constitution. It cannot be amended simply by executive order.

That was my understanding as well.

 

[Fantine]

I agree.
This issue needs clarification.
There are foreign nationals who fly in, have a baby, then fly home.
They don't have any ties to this country whatsoever.
This is the start.
If the Court can't clarify this issue, then the Republicans will probably start proceedings to amend the Constiution.

As can be seen with the Equal Rights Amendment, the process is onerous.
One or two states even ratified the ERA and later rescinded it.
If a truth that should be as obvious as the nose on my face can't be ratified, an amendment to deny people born in the US citizenship has no chance.
But what do I know? I'm only a woman. SMH!

 

[Arcangl86]

Also, are we going to get another four years of "He's not anti-immigration, he only has an issue with illegal immigrants" as he proceeds to implement more and more restrictions on legal immigration?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

From what I can see, the 14th amendment grants citizenship to children born of non US citizens who are legally resident in the United States. It does not grant citizenship to children born of people who are illegally present in the US.
Donald Trump's executive order, and the subsequent challenges to it will force the courts to make a decision which will make this clear.

Correct and it will come down on how the 14th Amendment is interpretated by the Supreme Court.

I believe Trump knew the lawsuits would come over this, but he got the ball rolling towards SCOTU
interpretation, or a look at Congress amending the US Constitution, which of course is more
difficult.

 

[BPPLEE]

Also, are we going to get another four years of "He's not anti-immigration, he only has an issue with illegal immigrants" as he proceeds to implement more and more restrictions on legal immigration?

Wait, y'all were complaining because he wanted all college graduates from other countries to get H-1B visas

 

[Arcangl86]

Wait, y'all were complaining because he wanted all college graduates from other countries to get H-1B visas

If you are going to address what I've said, you should make sure they are actually things I've said. I'm not aware of commenting about that plan on either side of the issue. But that's a great example because birthright citizenship would be stripped from the children of H-1B visa holders under this plan. So even if he is supporting the continued use of the process, he is still planning on restricting it.

 

[BPPLEE]

If you are going to address what I've said, you should make sure they are actually things I've said. I'm not aware of commenting about that plan on either side of the issue. But that's a great example because birthright citizenship would be stripped from the children of H-1B visa holders under this plan. So even if he is supporting the continued use of the process, he is still planning on restricting it.

I should have specified I didn't mean you exclusively.
I don't think the 14th amendment was intended to let anyone come here, drop a baby and they get citizenship. It was intended to ensure that the children of former slaves were citizens

 

[JSRG]

I should have specified I didn't mean you exclusively.
I don't think the 14th amendment was intended to let anyone come here, drop a baby and they get citizenship. It was intended to ensure that the children of former slaves were citizens

It is true that I doubt anyone was actively thinking "let's make it so anyone can come here, drop a baby and that baby gets citizenship". However, such is a consequence of their intention to grant citizenship to all born in the US and bound by its laws ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), which is just about everyone in the United States aside from children born to ambassadors.

Perhaps, if back then people could hop on a plane and enter the US as easily as they can now, they would have done things differently. And perhaps if illegal immigration existed back then, they would have carved out an illegal immigrant exception (there was actually no illegal immigration at the time, unless someone wants to count the ban on importation of slaves; the very first law restricting immigration was passed about a decade after the 14th Amendment). But they didn't. They deliberately wrote a very broad grant of citizenship to people born here. And if it was more broad than it should have been, well, that's the law.

If a law or part of the Constitution proves defective due to unforeseen developments, the solution is to change the law or Constitution to fix it. Like how the original design of the electoral college created the bizarre electoral result in 1796 where the President and Vice President were of opposing political parties, causing them to pass an amendment to change the way it worked to avoid such an issue happening again.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Good, and it's what I expected the ACLU to do. There is a formal process for amending the Constitution. It cannot be amended simply by executive order.

I am pleased that the ACLU addressed this matter promptly. I hope the Supreme Court of the United States will consider this issue as soon as possible.

I am fine with either way. If Americans dislike the verdict, they can seek an amendment. Good luck to those who try; even an act of god couldn't amend the Constitution in this partisan political environment.