Trump wants to abolish US citizenship by right of birth - ForumDaily
The article has been automatically translated into English by Google Translate from Russian and has not been edited.
Переклад цього матеріалу українською мовою з російської було автоматично здійснено сервісом Google Translate, без подальшого редагування тексту.
Bu məqalə Google Translate servisi vasitəsi ilə avtomatik olaraq rus dilindən azərbaycan dilinə tərcümə olunmuşdur. Bundan sonra mətn redaktə edilməmişdir.

Trump wants to abolish the grant of citizenship to the United States

US President Donald Trump announced his intention to sign an executive decree on the termination of “citizenship by birth”, which is received by children of non-US citizens born in the States.

Фото: Depositphotos

This was stated by the head of state during an interview in the Axios program on the HBO channel, writes USA Today.

“I was always told that this would require a constitutional amendment. Guess what? Need not! This can be done through an act of Congress, but now they say I can do it by simply issuing an executive order,” Trump said.

“We are the only country in the world where a person comes, gives birth to a child, and the child is essentially a citizen of the United States with all the benefits that come with it,” the president said. However, the head of state was a little deceitful in this regard - according to Worldatlas, around 30 countries of the world are granted citizenship by birth. This list includes Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile.

Trump added that "this is ridiculous, and it must end." He explained that he had already discussed this issue with lawyers, and that the preparation of an executive decree is “in process”.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment regarding the preparation of the decree.

If it is signed, then such an executive order is likely to immediately face lawsuits. According to the 14 th amendment to the Constitution, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and within their jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and the state in which they live."

Many lawyers doubt that such an order of the president will stand the test of the Supreme Court.

“The 14th Amendment is clear on this issue: Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States and the states in which they reside,” said Sarah E. Turberville, an expert with the Project on Government Oversight.

“We may question whether this is good policy, but we cannot doubt that the Constitution says it clearly and directly,” she added.

Even conservative judges reluctantly support the president in this matter.

In 2007, James K. Ho, who Trump appointed to the US 5 District Court of Appeals in 2017, wrote: “Citizenship by birth is a constitutional right for children in the United States to illegally entertain people like Mayflower.”

Omar Jadvat, director of the Immigrant Rights Project under the American Civil Liberties Union, said the 14-I amendment is very clear and Trump’s decree will not be able to cancel it.

“This is a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to sow discord and fan the flames of hatred against immigrants in the days leading up to the midterm elections,” Jadwat said.

The 14-I amendment to the US Constitution was adopted in 1868 after the Civil War and was intended to grant citizenship to freed slaves.

The concept of citizenship by birth was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1898, when the court confirmed the American citizenship of a person born in the United States to parents who were citizens of China.

In July, Michael Anton, a spokesman for the National Security Council at Trump, stated that the text of the amendment “children of persons under US jurisdiction” cannot be applied to children of illegal immigrants who entered the country illegally. He also clarified that in 1998, the court ruled that only children of legal residents or immigrants in the United States should receive citizenship.

He added that Trump’s decree would deal specifically with illegal immigrants, admitting that they would try to appeal such a decision in court.

In a 1982 decision, the Supreme Court rejected an argument similar to Anton's and held that even if a person had entered the country illegally, he was still subject to U.S. jurisdiction and "subject to the full range of civil and civil obligations imposed by the State." criminal laws, and until he leaves the jurisdiction, whether voluntarily or involuntarily under the Constitution and laws of the United States, he is entitled to the equal protection of his rights as guaranteed by the State."

In 2011, Ho wrote that "the meaning of this decision is simple and clear." A foreign citizen residing in the United States is “subject to the jurisdiction of the country” because he is required to obey the laws of the United States.

Read also on ForumDaily:

How long do I need to wait for the green card for family reunification: data for October

Everything you need to know about naturalization in the United States: a lawyer answered readers' questions ForumDaily

Which passport gives more freedom and guarantees

Free courses and legal assistance for US migrants: list of organizations

In the U.S. Donald Trump US citizenship Educational program
Subscribe to ForumDaily on Google News

Do you want more important and interesting news about life in the USA and immigration to America? — support us donate! Also subscribe to our page Facebook. Select the “Priority in display” option and read us first. Also, don't forget to subscribe to our РєР ° РЅР ° Р »РІ Telegram  and Instagram- there is a lot of interesting things there. And join thousands of readers ForumDaily New York — there you will find a lot of interesting and positive information about life in the metropolis. 



 
1071 requests in 1,190 seconds.