Supreme Court will hear Trump’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON— President Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship Newborn babies whose parents are here illegally or temporarily will have a full hearing before the Supreme Court.
The justices decided Friday to hear arguments on Trump’s proposal after judges across the country declared it unconstitutional and blocked it from taking effect.
Trump’s lawyers argued that the government has been misreading the 14th Amendment for at least a century.
He proposed an amendment “because the President recognizes that automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens creates a strong incentive for illegal immigration,” he told the court.
“Not only are such children automatically full citizens, but their citizenship is often immediately asserted to prevent the removal of their illegal alien parents,” said Solicitor General J. Dean Sauer.
The 14th Amendment of 1868 begins with these words: “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.”
The amendment officially overturned the Dred Scott decision, in which the court said free Black people were not citizens.
The key phrase “subject to jurisdiction” turns out to mean “subject to the laws of the United States,” and that covers pretty much everyone here except foreign diplomats.
But Trump’s lawyers argued that the phrase was understood more narrowly in 1868 to refer to people with political allegiance to the United States rather than a foreign country.
Based on this understanding, Trump’s lawyer argued that “the Citizenship Clause was enacted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to the children of illegal aliens, birth tourists, and temporary visitors.”
“Nearly automatic citizenship has given rise to a modern ‘birth tourism’ industry in which foreigners travel to the United States solely for the purpose of giving birth here and obtaining citizenship for their children,” he said.
While rejecting Trump’s offer, lawyers and judges drew attention to the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, and his citizenship was later confirmed by the court.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” said ACLU national legal director Cecillia Wang. “It has been our law and national tradition for more than 150 years that all persons born on United States soil are natural-born citizens. … We look forward to delivering this issue once and for all to the Supreme Court this term.”
Trump’s lawyers brushed aside that precedent, arguing that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were “permanent residents” of California. He said the court’s opinion repeatedly references that fact, arguing that birthright citizenship is limited to legally resident parents, not those who are here illegally or temporarily.
The court will likely hear arguments in the Trump-Barbara case in March and issue its decision by the end of June.
Sauer said that if the court accepts Trump’s offer, it will work “only going forward.”
Babies whose parents are not citizens or “lawful permanent residents” will be denied citizenship, and children of mothers “visiting on a student, work or tourist visa” will also be excluded.
