First Legal this week filed two Amikos briefs in support of President Donald Trump’s executive order, supporting the end of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
The company submitted briefs on behalf of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R. Ohio and 17 other committee members.
The US first defeated illegal immigrants despite Democratic-run states and civil rights groups suing to suspend the order, and two federal judges ruled that they would temporarily block it. The immigration law of a country claims that there is a clear constitutional basis for denying citizenship to illegal immigrants.
“Blackly Unconstitutional”: US judge temporarily blocks Trump’s birthright ban
President Donald Trump will sign executive orders at the White House Oval Office in Washington, DC on January 20th (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Trump’s order, entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Values of American Citizenship,” states that “the privilege of US citizenship does not automatically extend to those born in the United States.” Its existence is legal, but it is temporary.
Briefs filed in federal courts for the Western District of Washington and Massachusetts argue that the Constitution does not confer citizenship on illegally appearing children, based on the 14th Amendment “Text and History.” . . The brief argues that citizenship in the United States is a political right and not an automatic qualification.
The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 and was designed to extend citizenship to former African American slaves. The amendment states that “every person born or naturalized in the United States is subject to that jurisdiction and is a citizen of the United States and the state in which they live.”
Dan Epstein, vice president of America First Legal, told Fox News Digital that the phrase “the subject of its jurisdiction” means that citizens must bear political loyalty to the United States, not foreign power or culture. He said it means. He said Trump’s order restores the constitutional principle that those subject to US jurisdiction (faithful and law-abiding Americans) are citizens.
Many US appeal to Trump to executive orders for innate citizenship as the Supreme Court can make final decisions
President Donald Trump’s executive order is an effort to end the birthright citizenship of illegal immigrant children. (Christian Torres/Anadolu via AP Photo/Evan Vucci | Getty Images)
“This executive order is constitutionally legally effective,” Epstein said. “The Constitution makes it clear that it is not a “naturally born civic clause.” It is “born naturally and subject to jurisdiction.” And we cannot hook “the subject of that jurisdiction.” “Jurisdiction” means you are a faithful subject of American jurisdiction.
Click here for immigration compensation
“Congress specifically does not recognize that individuals born to illegal foreigners in US soils are by definition citizens. That’s not anywhere in the law,” he explained. “If Congress decides to pass the law and the court says it’s constitutional, in fact, if you were born in American soil, you said you’re a citizen. And with the Supreme Court Federal courts confirm this.
Epstein said the US policy of expanding citizenship to those born in US soil, including those born from illegal immigrants, would break American traditions and disrupt the rule of law.
Republican State AGS BACK TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIT ORDER ONDING ON COURT FILINGING: “Taxpayers are on the hook.”
First Legal Vice President of America, Dan Epstein, said that the US policy of expanding citizenship to those born in the US soil, including those born to illegal immigrants, will break American traditions and destroy the rule of law. He said that. (US Border Patrol)
“There’s a lot to be found here on balance,” he explained. “If there is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that anyone born here is like African Americans who have a history of slavery and terrible things, then we are actually descendants of ex-slavery. It dilutes that American tradition. It is not the 14th revision.”
Click here to get the Fox News app
Despite Trump’s executive order currently being blocked, Epstein said he was optimistic that the Supreme Court will ultimately control Trump’s support.
“My expectation is that this is simple. The law is clear and subject to its jurisdiction, “it has to mean something,” he said. “And whether you’re looking at the legislative history of that phrase or how it’s applied — [U.S. vs.] A distinguished and outstanding case of this, Wong Kim Ark reveals that jurisdiction means loyalty. So, that’s not a very difficult question. That’s a very clear question. And there is a very clear answer to the law. ”
Peter Pinedo is a Fox News Digital politician.
Source link
