President Donald Trump’s executive order has ignited a legal and political debate to end congenital citizenship in the US, which raises questions about the 14th amendment in the US Constitution and the limit of President Shakti.
Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil.
“We are the only country in the world that does with birthright, as you know. And it is just ridiculous. But, you know, we will see. We feel that we have very good grounds and some people want to do so for decades, ”Trump said in the office on its first day, signing the executive order.
The United States is one of the about 30 countries that provide automatic citizenship to individuals born on their soil including Brazil, Mexico and Canada. Practice is known as juice cool (Latin for “soil rights”). But the US is notable for the widespread application of the Unconditional Juice Solie, as lies in the 14th Amendment.
Are there limitations of 14th amendment?
The amendment, confirmed in 1868, was designed to address citizenship questions after the US Civil War and to reduce the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision, which is the citizenship of African Americans.
The text reads: “All individuals in the United States are born or born naturally, and are subject to its jurisdiction, they are citizens of the United States and they belong to the state they reside. “
John You, a professor at California Berkeley Law School and visiting the Fellow Institute, said, “This language confirms the traditional understanding that was born in the United States is automatically a citizen.”
However, critics argue that the phrase “subjected to the jurisdiction” means that at least one parent must have an use to provide citizenship to a child.
For Yoo, this interpretation aligns more closely with European Jus Sanguinis, or “blood law” approach, which combines citizenship to parentage rather than birthplace.
“For me, that the language of just 14th amendment and historical practice does not mean,” Yo said. “In cases like Supreme Court, United States V. Wong kim arcConstant amendment for congenital citizenship is explained.
Critics of Trump’s executive order say the 14th amendment is the cornerstone of civil rights in the United States.
“The 14th amendment, it was designed to give births. … Constitutional rights cannot be taken away by the President. They can only be taken away by the Congress, and thus the executive order is illegal, “Tuit Duong said, for the National Asian Pacific American Mahila Manch for immigration lawyer and policy expert.
However, the supporters of the executive order argue that the more limited interpretation of the amendment is warrant.
“President Trump has made it clear that restoring the fairness for our immigration system and defending the real intentions of the 14th amendment is central for his vision to re -make America great,” Republican Congress Bryan Babin, Republican of Texas, ” Asked reporters during a press conference last Thursday. ,
Amy Swier, a senior legal partner in the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, Wrote in a report in 2019 The United States is a good reason for the United States to reconsider its long -standing policy of providing citizenship to everyone born on SIL.
The oath argued that the aim of the 14th amendment was only to give birthright citizenship to the American-born children whose parents were “like free slaves, under the full jurisdiction of the United States. In a modern immigration context, It will be that the constitution makes Bartreite citizenship compulsory only for American-born citizens, citizens and legitimate permanent residents.
Legal challenges
Trump’s executive order is facing important legal challenges, in which many cases are in progress. Twenty -two Democratic -led states have filed a lawsuit that argued that the order violates the 14th amendment.
A federal judge in Seattle has effectively stopped the order of congenital citizenship. Last Thursday, US District Judge John C. Seattle of Kafenor temporarily blocked it, describing it as “clearly unconstitutional”.
But if the matter reaches the Supreme Court, the result can reopen the understanding of citizenship of the country.
If the court was in favor with Trump, the most immediate effect will be on newborns and those who are still to get birth certificates and social security numbers. And questions will arise about the retrospective application.
“It is extremely complex to find out how this rule will operate. Can this civilian deny citizenship for people born historically without citizen parents? How far will it go? Thesis is exactly the same issues designed to avoid the 14th amendment, ”the UO told the VOA.
While a lot of attention is on judicial challenges, UO said that the Congress can resolve the issue as a legislature.
“The Congress can expand congenital citizenship by law, confirming the traditional understanding. But it is not clear what the Congress can do in this politically charged environment, ”Yo said.
Nevertheless, he believes that the Supreme Court will maintain birthright.
He said, “The text of the 14th amendment, its history, and the Supreme Court consistently indicate everyone for all congenital citizenship,” he said.
