A legal brief submitted to the U. S. Supreme Court seeks to challenge the concept of "birthright citizenship" as established under the Fourteenth Amendment. The brief supports the Trump administration's stance that not all children born on U. S. soil automatically receive citizenship, particularly if their parents are illegal immigrants.
1. Support from State Attorneys General: A coalition of 24 state attorneys general, led by Tennessee's Jonathan Skrmetti and Iowa's Brenna Bird, filed a 37-page brief backing the Trump administration's legal position on birthright citizenship.
2. Clarification of the Fourteenth Amendment: The brief claims that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause does not grant automatic citizenship to anyone born in the U. S. Instead, citizenship was intended for children of lawful residents, and this understanding dates back to the Amendment's ratification.
3. Historical Context: The brief outlines historical precedents and interpretations of the Citizenship Clause, asserting that its original intent does not include children born to parents lacking legal status in the U. S. It highlights comments made during the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which clarifies that only those not subject to any foreign power were to be considered citizens.
4. Critique of Existing Arguments: It addresses the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, stating that it supports their argument against birthright citizenship since the child's parents in that case were legally residing in the U. S. at the time of birth.
5. Impact of Birthright Citizenship: The brief argues that birthright citizenship contributes to illegal immigration, which burdens government resources and cultural cohesion. It emphasizes that granting automatic citizenship based on physical presence undermines meaningful connections to the U. S.
6. Expectations from the Supreme Court: The brief seeks to prompt the Supreme Court to reconsider the nature of citizenship as outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment, hoping for a ruling that aligns with their interpretation and begins addressing the issue of illegal immigration.
The argument presented by the attorneys general of 24 states aims to redefine the interpretation of birthright citizenship through the lens of the Fourteenth Amendment's original intent. The outcome of this case could potentially reshape immigration policy and clarify the legal standing of many individuals born to undocumented immigrants in the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment