WASHINGTON – A court Appeals in the United States issued a ruling that prohibits the administration of President Donald Trump denying the citizenship by birth to children of immigrants without legal status, declaring the measure of “unconstitutional”.
It is a ruling of the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Federal Circuit. The judgment confirms the decision of a lower instance court that decided on July 10 to block the White House measurement at the national level after the plaintiffs filed a collective claim.
The case will reach the Supreme Court, the maximum instance that the last word will have on whether or not constitutional decree is constitutional.
“The District Court concluded that the interpretation proposed in the Executive Order, which denies citizens to many people born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We totally agree,” says the ruling of the three magistrates that make up the Court of Appeals. The sentence was 2-1.
Since his first presidential campaign in 2016, Donald Trump has argued that automatic citizenship by birth – known as Jus Soli– It has been used as an “easy way” to obtain migratory and legal benefits. In his vision, the constitutional principle granted by nationality to any person born on American soil has been used by migrants in an irregular situation to ensure the legal status of their children and, eventually, obtain it themselves. Therefore, he proposed to limit this right to the children of citizens or permanent residents.
On the other hand, foreign citizens travel to the United States with visas to give birth to their children to obtain US citizenship.
Trump’s proposal seeks to reinterpret the 14th amendment of the Constitution, which since 1868 guarantees citizens to every person born in US territory, without distinction by the immigration status of parents. Although numerous jurists and previous failures have confirmed the strength of this principle, the former president argues that he should not apply to children of people in the country without legal authorization or with temporary visas. His team considers that this reinterpretation could deter irregular migration and reduce what they call “birth tourism.”
Collective demand
The Supreme Court issued a historical ruling on June 27 that limits the ability of judges to stop policies throughout the country through precautionary measures of national scope from particular cases.
In this way, the highest court gave Trump’s plans, which aspires to restrict automatic citizenship for children of migrants in an irregular situation or low temporary residence status, such as asylum or visas, could go into force in some parts of the country. But he did not declare that this policy is legal or according to the Constitution.
In addition, he prohibited Trump’s decree from entering into force within 30 days, that is, until July 27, and left open the possibility of judges accepting collective demands.
The court of the ninth circuit ruled on Wednesday that the case was protected by one of the exceptions left open the judges, the collective demands. The case was presented by a group of states – Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon – who argued the need for a national scope order to avoid the problems that would be caused if citizens by birth were only legal in the middle of the country, Univisión review.
Judges Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed during the administration of Democrat Bill Clinton. “We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by issuing a precautionary measure of universal scope to provide the states with a complete relief,” they wrote in the judicial ruling.
But Judge Patrick Bumatay, designated by Trump, concluded that the States lack legal law or legitimacy to sue.
“We must address any request for universal amparo with skepticism in good faith, aware that the invocation of a ‘complete amparo’ does not constitute an indirect way for universal judicial mandates,” he wrote.
Bumatay, however, did not pronounce on whether the elimination of citizens by birth would be unconstitutional or not.
The last word is not said in the case.
