Supreme Court weighs Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship

WASHINGTON— On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear President Trump’s argument that he has the power to revise the Constitution and end the birthright citizenship of babies born in this country to parents who are here illegally or temporarily.

Trump proposed this potentially far-reaching change in an executive order. It was blocked by judges across the country and never took effect.

His lawyers claim they are trying to correct a 160-year-old misunderstanding about the Constitution’s promise that “everyone” born in this country will be considered a citizen.

President’s executive order “restores original meaning of citizenship clause”Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal that he would “only prospectively” deny citizenship to “children of temporarily existing aliens and illegal aliens.”

However, the first obstacle for Trump and his lawyers may be related to the president’s powers.

In February, the court blocked Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs on the grounds that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to impose import taxes.

By comparison, the president has even less power to set the rules for U.S. citizenship. The Constitution gives Congress the following powers:establish a uniform rule on naturalization.”

After the Civil War, Congress passed a law. Civil rights act of 1866 “All persons, of every race and color, born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, including Indians not taxed, are hereby declared citizens of the United States of America.”

This rule was added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment to ensure its validity over time. The opening line reads: “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.”

In 1898, a conservative Supreme Court upheld this rule and confirmed Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship. Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents and later returned to China.

“The 14th Amendment confirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said. “With clear words and clear intent, [it] includes the children of all other persons born on the territory of the United States, regardless of race or color.”

In 1952, when Congress revised the immigration laws, it added the same provision without controversy. Lawmakers have established many rules for adjudicating disputes involving American parents living abroad, but the first rule was simple and uncontroversial.

“The following persons shall be citizens and nationals of the United States at birth: Persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” the law said.

Critics say Trump’s plan could replace a clear and simple rule with a confusing and complex rule. States will have to look at the background and legal status of a newborn baby’s parents to decide whether they meet the new qualifications.

Until now, a valid birth certificate was sufficient to establish a person’s US citizenship.

Last week, Trump made the following call to Republicans in the Senate: pass a new election law This would require millions of Americans to present a birth certificate as proof of their citizenship if they register to vote or move to a new state.

“Proving citizenship to vote is a no-brainer,” the White House said.

But this week, Trump’s lawyers are urging the court to rule that being born in this country is not proof of their citizenship.

There’s a “logical inconsistency” here, said Eliza Sweren-Becker, a voting rights expert at the Brennan Center.

In the legal battle currently before the court, the key phrase in dispute is “subject to jurisdiction.” This means that people in the United States are subject to the laws there, except for foreign diplomats and Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations for a time.

But Sauer claims that newborn babies who are “not entirely subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States” because their parents are in this country illegally are outside the scope of this law.

American Civil Liberties Union lawyers called it a “radical rewriting” of the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about the parents of a newborn child.

If approved, the ruling could apply to “tens of thousands of children born every month,” they said, “devastating families across the country.” But worse, they said, the outcome would “cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions of Americans and millions of Americans from generations ago.”

Some legal experts predict the court may rule narrowly and reject Trump’s executive order because it conflicts with federal immigration laws. Such a decision would be a defeat for Trump, but it could allow Congress in the future to pass new provisions, including limits on expectant mothers entering this country to give birth.