Federal judge blocks Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, calling it 'blatantly unconstitutional'

Read Time:3 Minute, 4 Second

A federal district court judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked Trump's executive order aimed at limiting birthright citizenship, calling the measure “blatantly unconstitutional.” Senior U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour issued the decision Thursday, suspending the policy for 14 days while further arguments are made for a preliminary injunction that permanently halts the order. The executive order Trump signed seeks to limit automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens or green card holders. It marked a direct challenge to the Fourteenth Amendment, which had long been thought to guarantee citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, except for the children of foreign diplomats. “I have been a judge for over forty years,” said Judge Caughnour, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. “I don't remember another case that raises the issues as clearly as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.” The case was brought by four states – Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon – as well as Democratic attorneys general and immigrant rights groups . The plaintiffs argue that the executive order violates the clear language of the Fourteenth Amendment, will cause significant harm to children born in the United States, and imposes a financial burden on states responsible for enforcing the order. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, begins with the sentence: “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 in which they reside.” Legal experts and advocates argue that this guarantees Citizenship of any person born on U.S. soil, regardless of the immigration status of his or her parents. The plaintiffs warned that the executive order would create a “presidentially created underclass” in the United States. They argued the policy would deny basic rights to children born in the plaintiff states, rendering them stateless and subject to deportation. Without birthright citizenship, children lose Social Security numbers, legal job opportunities, and the ability to vote or hold public office. States also say they will face significant financial losses due to disruptions to programs such as federally funded Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). By contrast, Justice Department lawyers defended the executive order as a necessary step to address what they said was a national problem. “Broken Immigration System.” The department argued that states lacked standing to sue, claiming economic harm associated with citizenship was not legally sufficient to challenge federal policy. They also argue that for more than a century, courts have misinterpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to hold that the children of “nonresident aliens” are not entitled to birthright citizenship because they are “subject to a foreign power.” The decision was the first to commit. It's been a long legal battle against the executive order. Legal analysts widely expect the case to go to the Supreme Court, where its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment will face intense scrutiny. The order has drawn widespread criticism from legal scholars, immigrant rights advocates and political leaders, who say it is an attempt to circumvent constitutional protections. In a court filing, attorneys for the plaintiff states described the order as a “modern-day version of Dred Scott,” citing the infamous Supreme Court decision that denied grants to Africans before the Civil War. Citizenship by descent. If implemented, the order would have widespread consequences for millions of children born in the United States to immigrant parents, potentially leaving them undocumented and without legal protections. Like this: Like Loading… Discover more from Baller AlertSubscribe to get the latest posts delivered to your email.

Source link