The executive order with which US President Donald Trump seeks to end the automatic citizenship concession to the children of irregular immigrants face challenges in court. Here are a look at the different cases related to the disposition.
A federal judge who already questioned the constitutionality of the Executive order on citizenship by birth right President Donald Trump will listen to arguments on Thursday about a longer suspension of the order, which seeks to prevent children from parents who are not legally in the country to automatically obtain US citizenship.
The federal district judge John Couchnour, in Seattle, has scheduled a hearing with lawyers from the Trump government, four states that demanded to stop the order and an organization of immigrants' rights, which challenges it on behalf of a group of future parents .
The procedure was held the day after a federal judge of Maryland issued a national suspension in a separate but similar case that involves rights of immigrants and pregnant women whose children close to birth could be affected.
Next, a more detailed glance to the current situation of the order on citizenship by birth right of the president.
In what situation is citizens for birth right?
The president's executive order seeks to end the automatic concession of citizenship to children born in American soil of parents who are in the country illegally or who are here temporarily, but legal, like those with student or tourist visas.
For now, however, he is in pause. Two weeks ago, Cughenour described the order as “flagrantly unconstitutional” and issued a 14 -day temporal restriction order blocking its implementation.
On Wednesday, the Federal Judge of District Deborah Boardman continued with a court order that keeps her suspended in the long term, until the merits of the case are resolved, unless the Trump government achieves a successful appeal.
When Boardman asked if the government would appeal, a government lawyer said he did not have the authority to make that decision immediately.
What is happening in the most recent case?
On Thursday, the issue of citizenship by birth right returns to Couchnour, a judge appointed by Ronald Reagan. During a view last month, he said that the case stood out in his more than four decades as a federal judge.
“I don't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this,” he told a lawyer from the Department of Justice.
It is expected that your temporary order that blocks the executive action expires on Thursday, when you will listen to arguments about whether you must issue a court order similar to that issued by the judge in Maryland.
What happens to the other cases that challenge the president's order?
In total, 22 states, as well as other organizations, have sued to try to stop executive action.
The case before Seattle Judge on Thursday involves four states: Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington. It has also been consolidated with a lawsuit filed by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. Eighteen states, led by Iowa, have presented a letter supporting the position of the Trump government in the case.
There is another view scheduled for Friday in a Massachusetts court. That case implies a different group of 18 states that oppose the order, including New Jersey, which is the main plaintiff.
What is the problem here?
The demands revolve around the 14th amended the Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the civil war and the infamous decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, which argued that Scott, a enslaved man, was not a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was prohibited.
The plaintiffs argue that the amendment, which establishes that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to their jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside,” are indisputably citizens.
The Trump government has affirmed that the children of non -citizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and, therefore, have no right to citizens.
“The Constitution does not house an unexpected gain clause granted by US citizenship to … the children of those who have eluded (or openly challenged) federal immigration laws,” the government argued in response to demand in Maryland.
The lawyers of the states have argued that it certainly does, as has been recognized since the adoption of the amendment, notably in a decision of 1898 of the US Supreme Court, in the United States against Wong Kim Ark, which argued that the The only children who did not automatically receive American citizenship at birth on American soil were the children of diplomats, who have loyalty to another government; enemies present in the US during a hostile occupation; those born in foreign ships; and those born of members of sovereign American indigenous tribes.
The United States is among about 30 countries where citizens are applied by birth right, the principle of Jus Soli or “land law.” Most are in America, and Canada and Mexico are among them.