Even without birthright citizenship, Supreme Court co-signs much of Trump’s immigration agenda
WASHINGTON— Over the past year and a half, the Trump administration has repeatedly appealed to the Supreme Court to approve its sweeping immigration enforcement plans. While the administration this week lost its bid to eliminate birthright citizenship by executive order, its strategy has largely been successful.
In a White House news release Listing the 60 actions the administration has taken as part of its “America First” agenda to restrict immigration, the first four actions were Supreme Court decisions.
After the court ruled in June that President Trump could strip temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants without judicial review, the administration celebrated the decision as a “major victory for American sovereignty.”
The list of accomplishments also noted that the high court gave immigration officers more leeway to remove green card holders accused of crimes but not convicted; allowed the administration to limit how many people could apply for asylum; and gave the green light to continue deporting migrants to third-party countries with which they have no connection.
The decisions have significant consequences for immigrants who make their living in the United States and will reshape public opinion about the country’s historic position as a place of refuge. The administration has not only sought to restrict illegal immigration, but has also targeted people legally residing in the country and stepped up efforts to deport them.
Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, said the court’s mandate, which ended last week, was the most solid judicial affirmation of executive authority over immigration in the court’s history. Chishti said the decisions show that future presidents can continue to change immigration policies at their discretion.
“The biggest impact is that we now fully understand the power of the presidency, especially on immigration issues,” Chishti said. “Whenever any discretionary power is left to the president or the executive branch, this Supreme Court has expanded the limits of that authority.”
One of Trump’s first victories since returning to the White House came last September, when the Supreme Court confirmed that immigration officials can stop people they suspect are in the country illegally based on race, ethnicity, occupation or language they speak.
Federal authorities then launched enforcement operations in Chicago, North Carolina and Minneapolis, using increasingly aggressive tactics until two U.S. citizens were shot and killed by immigration officials in January and the administration changed course.
The Supreme Court’s decisions have been particularly impactful in South Florida, which is home to the largest share of Venezuelan immigrants in the country.
The end of Temporary Protected Status, a program intended to protect people in the event of a natural disaster, has raised concerns about deportation to a country reeling from a double earthquake on June 24. The casualties include more than 100 Venezuelans who were deported from the United States hours before the disaster.
Some Florida Republicans have called on the administration to renew legal protections for Venezuelans in the United States
“Congress specifically included earthquakes in the TPS statute for precisely moments like these,” said Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.). “I urge the Administration to redefine TPS for Venezuelans already in the United States because sending them back after this disaster is simply not the right thing to do.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on whether Trump would authorize humanitarian aid to Venezuelan migrants.
Salvadoran immigrants are now holding their breath for an upcoming decision on TPS assignments, which expire on September 9.
When Trump took office last year, nearly 1.3 million people from 17 countries were enrolled in the program. The administration has already ended TPS for many, and last week’s Supreme Court decision involving Haitians and Syrians clears the way for federal authorities to continue.
“What this means is that at least most of the claims that were filed to challenge this administration’s illegal war on TPS are now foreclosed,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy, who presented arguments in the Syria case.
Concerns among lawyers have become more urgent New York Times and other outlets reported Thursday that immigration authorities, aiming to meet a goal of 2,000 arrests a day, had detained more than 10,000 people in less than a week.
Arnulfo De La Cruz, who leads the California union that represents thousands of home care workers with temporary protected status, said he was concerned about the Supreme Court’s spate of immigration decisions.
“We’re getting into really dangerous territory with the Supreme Court in some respects almost codifying the administration’s priorities,” said De La Cruz, president of SEIU California and SEIU Local 2015. “That’s Congress’ responsibility.”
In a coup central to the administration’s immigration agenda, the divided Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship; that is, with a few exceptions, a person born on U.S. soil is a citizen.
Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor emeritus of immigration law at Cornell University, said the decision was a setback amid Trump’s largely successful restructuring of how the United States treats immigrants. he pointed out a scout The report, led by a Stanford University law professor, lists more than 700 immigration policy actions by the Trump administration so far.
“Despite this seemingly historic loss, the Trump administration is winning its war on immigrants,” Yale-Loehr said.
And now some Republicans, including Trump, say Congress should lead the attack on birthright citizenship.
“You can’t have the kinds of immigration programs that other countries have when you’re just here to have a baby and that child is now an American citizen,” said Stephen Miller, a Trump aide who is behind much of the immigration agenda.
But Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute actually said: “Congress can’t do anything; it’s been disempowered by the Supreme Court.”
Other conservatives called on the administration to rely on the considerable authority it already has.
Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a hardline restrictive group, said the birthright decision “makes it even more urgent to expedite enforcement to the fullest extent possible.”
Democrats, meanwhile, cheered the victory, acknowledging their continued fight against the administration’s immigration policies.
“We cannot rest,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy, and what it means to be an American.”
More immigration related cases They are among the names on the Supreme Court’s agenda starting in October and may recommend further expansion of executive power.
One case concerns more than 50,000 petitions filed in federal courts in hopes of freeing detained immigrants. These petitions ballooned after the administration began restricting the ability of many immigrants to seek release through a bail hearing in immigration court.
The administration is expected to make a harsh defense.
