in

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order Faces Legal Blockade at Supreme Court

Donald Trump’s first executive order is shaping up to be a legal hornet’s nest, and not in a good way. The former president’s attempt to end birthright citizenship has all the makings of a courtroom drama that will inevitably catapult itself to the Supreme Court. Spoiler alert: the odds are stacked against Trump. It turns out that simply signing a piece of paper in the Oval Office doesn’t magically rewrite the Constitution.

At the center of this legal tussle is the 14th Amendment, crafted in the wake of the Civil War, which guaranteed citizenship to former slaves. Before this amendment, a Supreme Court decision—infamously known as the Dred Scott case—famously declared that blacks couldn’t be considered U.S. citizens. The 14th Amendment was Congress’s way of ensuring that such an absurdity would never happen again. The clause that is particularly relevant to Trump’s endeavor states that anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen, with the caveat that they must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.

Simplifying the legalese, for a baby to be considered a natural-born U.S. citizen, they need to meet two criteria: being born on American soil and being beholden to its jurisdiction. The amendment was a monumental step in ensuring citizenship rights for every child born to freed slaves. Now, the question looms large over whether this definition applies to the so-called “anchor babies,” born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil.

Historically, the answer seems pretty straightforward: yes, those babies are considered U.S. citizens. However, Trump’s executive order throws a wrench in the works by seeking to redefine what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” really means. In a nutshell, it’s a mess. Historical scholarship has established that this clause has traditionally excluded individuals not required to adhere to U.S. law, such as foreign diplomats and enemy combatants. So, trying to kick those born on American soil to illegal immigrant parents out of the citizenship club creates a legal quagmire.

A key player in this discussion is Judge James Ho, who pointed out that the principle of being “subject to the jurisdiction” involves acknowledging U.S. laws. He elaborated that the legal obligation to abide by these laws is what grants citizenship, not blind allegiance to the nation. Even members of the 39th Congress realized that the amendment could lead to citizenship for babies whose parents owed no allegiance to the United States—a point they were fully aware of when they ratified it.

Ultimately, Trump’s bid to alter birthright citizenship through an executive order runs into a wall of established legal precedent. The Supreme Court, when this issue eventually lands on its doorstep, is unlikely to entertain Trump’s untested claims. In fact, a unanimous rejection seems probable given the lack of solid legal footing for his argument. If there is a legitimate desire to modify birthright citizenship, the proper route would be an amendment to the Constitution—an avenue that remains unexplored amidst all the legal maneuvering. Looking at this unfolding saga, it appears that Trump is on a collision course with legal reality, and the outcome seems all but predetermined.

Written by Staff Reports

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trump Returns to Davos with Fiery Speech Restoring American Power and Values