Supreme Court will hear Trump’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship

WASHINGTON- President Trump’s plan to end the citizenship rights of newborns whose parents are here illegally or temporarily will face a full hearing before the Supreme Court.

The justices agreed 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 have argued that the government has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment for at least a century.

He proposed a change because “the President has recognized that automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens provides a powerful incentive for illegal immigration,” they told the court.

“Not only do these children automatically become full citizens, but their citizenship is often quickly asserted to prevent the deportation of their illegal alien parents,” argued Attorney General J. Dean Sauer.

The 14th Amendment of 1868 begins with the words: “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 wherein they reside.” »

The amendment formally overturns the Dred Scott decision in which the court declared that free blacks were not citizens.

The key phrase “subject to their jurisdiction” has been understood to mean “subject to the laws of the United States,” and that includes almost everyone here except foreign diplomats.

But Trump’s lawyers argued that the phrase was understood in 1868 to refer more closely to people with a political allegiance to the United States rather than to a foreign country.

Based on this understanding, Trump’s lawyer argued that “the Citizenship Clause was adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to the children of illegal aliens, birth tourists, and temporary visitors.”

He said that “near automatic citizenship has given rise to a modern ‘birth tourism’ industry, whereby foreigners travel to the United States for the sole purpose of giving birth here and obtaining citizenship for their children. »

In rejecting Trump’s proposal, lawyers and judges pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in favor of Wong Kim Ark. He was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents and later had his citizenship confirmed in court.

“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU. “For more than 150 years, the law and our national tradition have held that everyone born on American soil is a natural-born citizen. … We look forward to settling this issue once and for all before the Supreme Court this Legislature.”

Trump’s lawyers dismissed this precedent by arguing that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were “permanently domiciled” in California. He said the court’s opinion referred to that fact several times, suggesting that birthright citizenship was limited to parents who were legal residents, not those who were here illegally or temporarily.

The court will likely hear arguments in Trump v. Barbara in March and issue its decision by the end of June.

If the court were to uphold Trump’s proposal, it would act “on a prospective basis only,” Sauer said.

It would deny citizenship to babies whose mother or father is neither a citizen nor a “lawful permanent resident,” and exclude children of mothers “visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa.”