ADVERTISEMENT

Civil rights groups and 22 states sue to stop order to end birthright citizenship

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,976
63,716
113
A coalition of 18 states, including New Jersey, New York and California, filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts, saying the order violates the constitutional rights of thousands of children and imposes undue costs on local jurisdictions that would lose federal funding tied to Medicaid and children’s health insurance. The District of Columbia and city of San Francisco also joined that filing.

Another group of states, including Arizona and Washington, filed a separate legal challenge Tuesday afternoon. And the American Civil Liberties Union and Lawyers for Civil Rights filed lawsuits in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, respectively, on behalf of parents whose children would not be eligible for citizenship under Trump’s order.

ADVERTISING


“The Constitution could not be more clear: citizenship of children born in the United States does not depend on the citizenship of their parents,” New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) said in a statement. “That principle is fundamental to who we are as a nation and what it means to be an American.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James said Trump’s action “is not just unconstitutional, it is profoundly dangerous.”
Trump signed the executive order shortly after his inauguration Monday. Titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” the order stipulates that his administration will no longer recognize automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to immigrant parents who are in the country without authorization, provided neither parent is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. In his first term, Trump threatened to take similar action but did not follow through.


The order, which Trump said would take effect 30 days from its signing, also bars automatic citizenship for children born to noncitizen parents who are in the country on temporary work, student or tourist visas.
“That’s a good one — birthright,” Trump told reporters, while signing the document. “That’s a big one.”
Legal experts said the sweeping effort runs counter to more than a century of legal precedent and is unlikely to pass constitutional muster.
The plan also faces significant logistical hurdles. The administration plans to enforce Trump’s order by withholding documents, such as passports, from people it deems ineligible for citizenship. The order also says the administration will refuse to accept documents from local or state governments that purport to recognize the citizenship of the children it has deemed ineligible for citizenship.


But the administration hasn’t yet explained who — hospitals, health insurance companies, local or state governments, federal officials or some other authority — would review parents’ legal documents to assess whether their children could become citizens.



Civil liberties organizations have said birthright citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. A legal case could ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, in which conservative justices outnumber liberal ones, 6-3.
When a reporter asked whether the order could be called unconstitutional by a court, Trump responded: “Could be. I think we have good grounds, but you could be right. We’ll find out. It’s ridiculous. … People have wanted to do this for decades.”

Trump falsely said the United States is the only country that offers birthright citizenship. In fact, more than 30 countries do, including Canada, Mexico and the majority of South American nations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Moral and BelemNole
I suspect this will succeed, with a 10% chance it eventually gets tossed on standing or something like that.

BTW, I assume that this is basically the harbinger for the First Circuit at some point generating a reversal rate that exceeds that of the Fifth Circuit. Probably makes some sense for the two sets of judges to go at it in some sort of Dana White/Linda McMahon-sponsored steel cage match on PPV.

Also also wik: time to invest in convenience stores and restaurants near the Manchester airport and federal courthouse.
 
I suspect this will succeed, with a 10% chance it eventually gets tossed on standing or something like that.

BTW, I assume that this is basically the harbinger for the First Circuit at some point generating a reversal rate that exceeds that of the Fifth Circuit. Probably makes some sense for the two sets of judges to go at it in some sort of Dana White/Linda McMahon-sponsored steel cage match on PPV.

Also also wik: time to invest in convenience stores and restaurants near the Manchester airport and federal courthouse.
Math What GIF by Riki Barker
 
Remember when the GOP used to pretend it cared about the Constitution?
The left hasn't pretended to care about it in years lol we are enforcing the actual original meaning of the law as it was written. It was not intended for illegals to come here (illegally) to have anchor babies to subvert the other laws we have on the books. The states supporting this as "unconstitutional" are also the biggest offenders of peoples first and second ammendment rights (beyond others). Lol at your weak argument.
 
Shockingly it seems like only states run by sanctuary cities. So weird. They're also gonna lose (bigly)

How are they going to lose? An executive order overturning a constitutional amendment with very specific language should be the longest of long shots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
How are they going to lose? An executive order overturning a constitutional amendment with very specific language should be the longest of long shots.
An executive order overturning leftist interpretation of the constitution. Big difference.
 
It was not intended for illegals to come here (illegally) to have anchor babies to subvert the other laws we have on the books.
But I'm guessing you interpret the 2nd Amendment to allow us to have Assault Rifles and machine guns if we want.

At the time that amendment was written, our entire country was made up of immigrants. So, of course, it was intended for exactly the situation. It was also written for recently freed slaves, so they would be seen as citizens and have a voice in our court houses and government buildings. If you're born here, you're a citizen of the USA. Period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
An executive order overturning leftist interpretation of the constitution. Big difference.
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.”

How do you interpret that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
An executive order overturning leftist interpretation of the constitution. Big difference.
There is no "interpretation" of these words. They are what they are:

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
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.”

How do you interpret that?


Enjoy. That last part has more meaning than you understand.
 
The left hasn't pretended to care about it in years lol we are enforcing the actual original meaning of the law as it was written. It was not intended for illegals to come here (illegally) to have anchor babies to subvert the other laws we have on the books. The states supporting this as "unconstitutional" are also the biggest offenders of peoples first and second ammendment rights (beyond others). Lol at your weak argument.

And there it is. Funny that you mention 2A. I assume you would support a Democratic president issuing an executive order banning guns? Same thing right? “Well armed militia” isn’t relevant with a standing army.

The language is actually more specific the 14th than in the second.

I support both amendments and if a president is allowed to simply overturn a constitutional amendment with an executive order we have officially become the monarchy that we fought to be free of so many years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
And there it is. Funny that you mention 2A. I assume you would support a Democratic president issuing an executive order banning guns? Same thing right? “Well armed militia” isn’t relevant with a standing army.

The language is actually more specific the 14th than in the second.

I support both amendments and if a president is allowed to simply overturn a constitutional amendment with an executive order we have officially become the monarchy that we fought to be free of so many years ago.
You clearly don't understand the actual language of either ammendment. Thank you for your contribution though and bless your heart.
 
Duh. "And subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means that said person living in a certain state is expected to follow the laws of said state. Hence, being in the "jurisdiction thereof". Nothing else.
You clearly didn't watch the super long 6 minute video I shared bc you're outright wrong with this take.
 
Duh. "And subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means that said person living in a certain state is expected to follow the laws of said state. Hence, being in the "jurisdiction thereof". Nothing else.

Don’t. Not worth it. I try very hard not to call Trump voters stupid as I do believe it feeds into his popularity. But this guy is the right wing version of Chis with better manners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT