NewYou can listen to the article on Fox News now!
Rarely New Administrative Order of President Donald Trump Like the issue of citizenship, it caused panic.
This order prohibits federal agencies from issuing or accepting citizenship documents Child born in the United States When the child is born, both parents are not American citizens or legal permanent residents.
Critics believe that the bill is openly violated, including a misleading federal judge in Seattle, who issued a temporary ban on the bill last week. But the new policy fully meets the text and original meaning of the 14th amendment.
“Public violations”: American judges temporarily prevent Trump from the ban on birth citizenship
In the next first century Approval of the 14th Amendment, Few legal scholars will turn a blind eye to Trump’s instructions. If so, they will be more confused about why the federal government starts passports to illegal foreigners, tourists and “temporary residents” born in the United States.
On January 20, 2025, a caravan immigration march headed to the US border on Tarpasla, Mexico. (Esar Gulizan/Agence France -Presse, Getty Pictures)
Contrary to the general view, the 14th amendment does not stipulate that all people born in the United States are citizens. It said that “all people born or naturalized in the United States and are under their jurisdiction are citizens. The second key and conditional phrases are easily ignored or misunderstood by advocates who are “universal” of citizenship.
The purpose of this move is to incorporate the protection of the 1866 Civil Agreement into the Constitution, which stipulates that “all people born in the United States and are not under the jurisdiction of any foreign forces” will be regarded as citizens.
The changes in language do not reflect that the parliament hopes to abolish the legal definition or adopt a universal birth of citizenship. In fact, the Civil Rights Act is still valid in the next 70 years, and the courts and legal scholars believe that it is completely consistent with the Citizen Terms.
Because the proposal country of the 14th amendment clearly states that “under the jurisdiction of the United States” means that politics is loyal to the United States, not other countries. The children born of foreigners are citizens of their parents’ motherland, so they are loyal to the motherland and are under their jurisdiction.
Legislative history shows that the 14th amendment of Congress is aimed at eliminating ethnic permanent citizenship disorders, rather than grant citizenship to everyone who was born in the United States. Congress does not intend to apply the right to born citizenship to those who are born in the United States who are only loyal to the United States in the United States.
Even modern supporters who are “citizenship of generally born rights” have acknowledged that the children born on American territory who are in the United States or the American aborigines who belong to the tribe have not obtained the citizenship of birth rights. In fact, they and their children only became citizens through the “Indian Citizen Law” in 1924 -if the 14th amendment adopts ordinary law rules for general citizenship, then this legislation is not necessary.
Although the critics of the Trump commands claim that the general birth of citizenship is “established on the land”, the Supreme Court has never explicitly resolved this problem.
For the first time in the U.S. Supreme Court, the meaning of citizenship clauses -in the famous slaughterhouse case in 1872 -it pointed out that the term “under its jurisdiction” excluded the “minister, consul, and children of citizens or subjects” in the United States in the United States Born foreign citizen. ”
On July 2, 2024, in New York City, Stakers Niakos Foundation Library held a citizenship ceremony, and people raised their hands and swore. (Michael M. San Diego/Getty Photo Shooting)
In 1884, the court confirmed the understanding in the Elkins case and denied that the American Indians were inherently citizenship because he “immediately loyalty” his tribe, not the United States.
Most of the legal arguments that support the common birth of citizenship have ignored these early cases and pointed to the judgment of the US -German case in 1898. However, the judgment simply believes that the children born in the United States in the United States are American citizens.
Click here to learn more about Fox News
In addition, the decision involves the constitutional constitutional behavior of creating a legal permanent resident class. These legal permanent residents are like blacks under the leadership of Dred Scott. They are always excluded from citizenship because of race – This is exactly what the fourteenth amendment aims to prevent.
The current immigration and national laws in our country no longer cause this ethnic permanent obstacle to citizenship. Today, federal regulations that define citizenship (8 USC § 1401) only repeat the wording of the 14th amendment, including the phrase “under its jurisdiction”.
Even modern supporters who are “citizenship of generally born rights” have acknowledged that the children born on American territory who are in the United States or the American aborigines who belong to the tribe have not obtained the citizenship of birth rights.
The wording still retains the same meaning as drafting and approval today. It does not evolve into other meanings because of the wrong explanations of the previous governments by mistake.
Therefore, the president has the right to instruct federal agencies to act in accordance with the 14th amendment, and only issue government documents and benefits to those individuals who are truly under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Click here to get Fox News Application
Trump’s order is far from trying to rewrite the constitution or “ending with the inherent citizenship”, but a urgent and long -standing route correction, reversing for decades No enforcement is obtained in the constitution.
Amy Swearer is a senior legal researcher at the Traditional Foundation Edwin Mis III Law and Judicial Research Center. Hans von Spakovsky is the manager of the reform of the election law and the senior legal researcher of the traditional foundation Edwin Mis III Law and Judicial Research Center.
Click here to read more content
Click here to read more content of Hans von Spakovsky
Hans von Sipkovsky is a senior legal researcher at the Traditional Foundation Mis Law and Judicial Research Center, and the manager of the reform plan of the think tank election law.
