On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour ruled to temporarily block the executive order signed by President Trump ending birthright citizenship.
This injunction is in effect for 14 days to allow for more scrutiny during the ensuing legal arguments.
Photo courtesy of The Seattle Times Copyright © 2018
This Trump executive order aims to end the policy of automatic citizenship for children of immigrants born in the U.S., including those who are temporary residents or without legal status.
The executive order signed by Trump on Jan. 20 says U.S. officials will no longer recognize U.S. citizenship for two categories of people
One, a person whose mother was in the U.S. illegally at the time of their birth and whose father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Second, a person whose mother was lawfully present in the U.S. at the time of the person’s birth, and whose father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, and whose mother was lawfully present in the U.S. on a temporary worker’s visa, such as a H 1B, L 1O1, or F 1, M 1, J 1, or B 2, and all other temporary, short-term, and lawful statuses.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed jointly by the states of Oregon, Arizona, Illinois, and Washington, in which the judge found that the president’s order may be grossly unconstitutional.
In the Seattle courtroom, Judge Kaufnauer made it clear that he believes Trump’s executive order is clearly unconstitutional .
Kaufnauer made no secret of his opinion I’ve sat in court for forty years and I’ve never seen a case like this where the legal issues are so clear. This executive order is thoroughly unconstitutional.
He even mentioned the lesson of history that at some point in history, people look back and ask, where were the judges and the lawyers at that time? Why didn’t they speak out? His words were loud and clear on the floor, conveying the seriousness and importance of this case.
Following the ruling, the Trump administration was barred from implementing this executive order while the case was pending.
In response to the ruling, Trump responded at a public event at the White House saying We’re certainly going to appeal this.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department later said that they will defend the executive order to the hilt.
We believe that the American people want to see the laws of the land strictly enforced, and we will fully articulate the rationale for this policy in court.
Currently, Democratic-led states are seeking temporary restraining orders because they believe Trump’s executive order is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment guarantees citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction. Photo courtesy of CNN Copyright Washington State attorney Lane Polozola told the court that childbearing cannot be suspended, so the case must be heard with that reality in mind. Polozola said Today, here, in the plaintiffs’ state and across the country, babies are being born whose citizenship is facing uncertainty. He further noted that under Trump’s executive order, these disenfranchised children will face long-term and significant negative consequences . In addition to the impact of Trump’s order on its residents, Washington and other states have argued that the termination of birthright citizenship will place a financial and logistical burden on their state programs because these children will not be able to receive the federal benefits to which they are entitled.
Currently, Democratic-led states are seeking temporary restraining orders because they believe Trump’s executive order blatantly violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
This amendment guarantees citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction.
Image courtesy of CNN Copyright
Washington state attorney Lane Polozola told the court that there is no moratorium on childbearing, so the case must be heard with that reality in mind.
Polozola said today, here in the plaintiffs’ state and across the country, babies are being born whose citizenship is facing uncertainty.
He further noted that under Trump’s executive order, these disenfranchised children will face long-term and significant negative consequences .
In addition to the impact of Trump’s order on its residents, Washington and other states have argued that the termination of birthright citizenship will place a financial and logistical burden on their state programs because these children will not be able to receive the federal benefits to which they are entitled.
Battle over birthright citizenship 22 states across the U.S. sue Trump
Many have given their own analysis and understanding of whether or not the executive order to repeal birthright citizenship will actually be implemented.
Little did we realize that in just less than 24 hours, a turnaround had already taken place.
According to ABC News, a total of more than 22 states across the country have now joined together to sue Trump in an attempt to block his executive order, which refuses to recognize children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants as citizens.
Photo courtesy of ABC News Copyright
Earlier on Tuesday, a lawsuit filed by 18 U.S. states, including California, accused Trump of trying to eliminate an established and long-standing constitutional principle through executive fiat .
Later in the evening, four more states filed similar lawsuits asking federal courts to block the implementation or enforcement of executive orders, bringing the total number of states to 22.
The lawsuit, which is expected to spark a long and unprecedented legal battle, was co-sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union, multiple state affiliate branches, and other immigrant groups on behalf of immigrants who have been affected by Trump’s executive order, according to the report.
The lawsuit reads For the plaintiffs and families across the U.S., the executive order seeks to strip their children of their citizenship, which will expose them to a lifetime of inability to integrate into society and the fear of deportation.
The lawsuit also claims that Trump’s actions in signing the executive order were illegal , and emphasizes that who qualifies as a full citizen of American society should be determined by the Constitution and Congress, not President Trump .
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Trump’s order will affect more than 20,000 babies born in California each year. He noted that there are about 11 million immigrants in the state, who make up almost 30 of the state’s population and one-third of its taxpayers.
Bonta said California is leading the lawsuit, which was filed in Massachusetts, along with Massachusetts and New Jersey.
Colorado Connecticut Delaware Hawaii Maine Maryland Michigan Minnesota Nevada New Mexico New York Rhode Island Vermont and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia, joined those states and the city of San Francisco as plaintiffs.
Also on Tuesday, the attorneys general of Washington, Arizona, Oregon and Illinois filed lawsuits on the West Coast.
It was filed in a federal court in Seattle, which is part of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In their own lawsuits, the states said the order would strip citizenship from at least 150,000 children whose parents have no legal status.
The states argued that the affected children would lose the ability to access various federal services available to their fellow Americans.
Despite the constitutional guarantee of citizenship, they will lose the right to participate in the economic and civic life of their country, to work, to vote, to serve on juries and to run for certain offices.
In an interview with NPR, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said what the president did yesterday was illegal, unconstitutional and indefensible.
We are an immigrant state. Millions of people in our state have gained citizenship through birthright citizenship.
There are also scholars who argue that the Trump administration can’t really end birthright citizenship.
Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, said Frankly, I don’t think this administration is going to solve this problem because I think the Supreme Court will probably rule in favor of the current practice.
Krikorian argues that Trump’s order has fueled a national conversation about birthright citizenship and could ultimately end the proposal due to a constitutional amendment.
It’s not easy to run a number, and I appreciate the support
Appreciate
Leave a Reply