America First Legal has recently filed two amicus briefs supporting President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. This legal action, taken this week, is intended to bolster Trump’s controversial policy, which has faced significant opposition in the courts and from various states.
The briefs were submitted on behalf of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, along with 17 other committee members. America First Legal argues that the executive order is constitutionally valid and necessary, asserting that it is crucial to clarify the interpretation of citizenship under the 14th Amendment. This amendment, ratified in 1868, was originally designed to grant citizenship to former slaves, stating that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Dan Epstein, vice president of America First Legal, emphasized that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" implies that citizenship should be reserved for those who owe allegiance to the United States. He contended that individuals born to parents who are unlawfully present in the country do not meet this criterion, thus justifying the executive order’s intent to deny them citizenship.
Despite the legal backing from America First, Trump’s order has encountered formidable challenges. Nearly two dozen states, predominantly led by Democrats, along with civil rights groups, have filed lawsuits to block the implementation of this executive order. Additionally, two federal judges have temporarily halted the order, citing concerns over its constitutionality.
The executive order, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," asserts that U.S. citizenship should not automatically extend to children born in the country if their parents are in the U.S. unlawfully or are present for temporary purposes. The briefs filed by America First Legal argue that the current policy of granting citizenship based on birthplace alone is inconsistent with American legal tradition and undermines the rule of law.
Epstein expressed optimism that the Supreme Court will ultimately rule in favor of Trump’s position, arguing that the constitutional language regarding citizenship is clear and that the historical context supports their interpretation. He pointed out that the legal framework surrounding citizenship has significant implications, particularly concerning the legacy of the 14th Amendment and its original intent.
As the legal battles continue, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for immigration policy and the interpretation of citizenship rights in the United States.