Trump attends top US court’s arguments on citizenship
With the participation of US President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the legality of Trump’s directive to restrict birthright citizenship in the US.
Some justices, including conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, asked tough questions of the Justice Department lawyer defending Trump’s action.
The justices were hearing an appeal of a lower court ruling that blocked the U.S. administration’s executive order ordering U.S. agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (also a “green card” holder).
Trump, wearing a red tie and dark suit, sat in the front row in the public gallery of the opulent courtroom.
Trump became the first president to participate in an oral argument on the Supreme Court, according to Clare Cushman, resident historian at the Supreme Court Historical Society.
U.S. Attorney D. John Sauer, representing the administration, began his arguments by stating that the citizenship clause “was adopted immediately after the Civil War to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children whose allegiance to the United States had resided here for generations.”
He said he “does not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens without such affiliation.”
The lower court, in a class-action lawsuit filed by parents and children whose citizenship was threatened by the directive, concluded that the directive Trump issued last year violated the citizenship language in the 14th amendment of the US constitution and federal law governing birthright citizenship rights.
The 14th amendment has long been interpreted to guarantee citizenship for infants born in the United States, with only narrow exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats or members of an enemy occupying force.
That provision, known as the Nationality Clause, states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts told Sauer that his arguments to limit who is eligible for citizenship at birth based on “subject to jurisdiction” 14th amendment language seemed “interesting.”
Noting that historically this phrase excluded the children of ambassadors or enemies during a hostile occupation, Roberts said Sauer was trying to illegally disseminate these samples to anyone in the United States.
“I’m not quite sure how you can get to this large group from such small, idiosyncratic samples,” Roberts said.
Progressive Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer about historical records that shed light on the debates around the passage of the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Sotomayor said the congressional record makes clear that the Trump administration’s legal theory was rejected at the time these measures were passed.
“What do we do with these debates and the fact that proponents of both laws say that everyone born in the United States will be a citizen?” Sotomayor asked.
Sauer disputed this view of U.S. history, saying there was a “common understanding that the guests did not have children who became citizens.”
The administration excluded babies of immigrants who are in the country illegally or whose presence is legal but temporary, such as college students or those on work visas, arguing that “subject to jurisdiction” means that being born in the United States is not sufficient for citizenship.
The administration has argued that citizenship is granted only to the children of citizens and permanent residents whose “primary allegiance” is to the United States.
The administration has said that granting citizenship to almost anyone born on U.S. soil encourages illegal immigration and leads to “birth tourism,” in which foreigners travel to the U.S. to give birth and provide citizenship to their children.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June.
with AP
