America First Legal has recently filed two amicus briefs in federal court supporting President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. This legal move comes amid significant opposition, including lawsuits from nearly two dozen Democrat-led states and rulings from two federal judges that have temporarily blocked the order.
The briefs were submitted on behalf of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio and 17 other committee members. Dan Epstein, the vice president of America First Legal, emphasized that the organization believes Trump’s order is "fully constitutional" and necessary to uphold immigration laws. The executive order is titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" and asserts that U.S. citizenship should not automatically apply to individuals born in the country if their parents are unlawfully present or only temporarily in the U.S.
The legal arguments presented in the briefs focus on the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 and originally intended to grant citizenship to former slaves. The amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." America First Legal contends that this clause indicates citizenship is a political right, rather than an automatic entitlement, and that children born to illegal immigrants do not meet the jurisdictional requirement.
Epstein articulated that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" implies that citizenship is reserved for individuals who owe political allegiance to the United States. He argued that the current policy, which grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, including children of illegal immigrants, undermines the rule of law and deviates from American tradition.
Despite the ongoing legal challenges, Epstein expressed optimism that the Supreme Court will ultimately support Trump’s stance on this issue. He argued that the law clearly defines the meaning of jurisdiction and that historical context supports the interpretation that allegiance to the U.S. is necessary for citizenship.
The executive order has sparked a heated debate over immigration policy and citizenship rights, with proponents arguing for stricter enforcement of immigration laws and opponents warning of the implications for civil rights. As the legal battles continue, the future of birthright citizenship remains uncertain, with significant implications for immigration policy in the United States.