NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
FIRST ON FOX: Nearly all Republican attorneys general asked the Supreme Court on Friday to side with President Donald Trump in his fight to curtail birthright citizenship, offering a wide show of support for one of the president’s most controversial agenda items.
The 24 states, led by Iowa’s Brenna Bird and Tennessee’s Jonathan Skrmetti, argued in an amicus brief that the 14th Amendment, which addresses birthright citizenship, was not designed to give automatic citizenship to babies born to mothers living in the country illegally or temporarily visiting.
The state attorneys wrote that they have a unique interest in seeing birthright citizenship limited because it incentivizes illegal immigration, which they said has negatively affected their states.
“Recent years have seen an influx of illegal aliens — over 9 million — overwhelming our nation’s infrastructure and its capacity to assimilate,” they wrote, adding that their states therefore face “significant economic, health, and public-safety issues from policies holding out a ‘powerful incentive for illegal migration,’ … beyond what the Citizenship Clause requires.”
HOW THE SUPREME COURT’S INJUNCTION RULING ADVANCES TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT
The states are rallying behind Trump with the Supreme Court expected to decide in the coming weeks whether it will take up the president’s petition that argues that the high court should reinterpret the 150-year-old amendment to do away with automatic citizenship.
Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and New Hampshire did not join Friday’s amicus brief. Fox News Digital reached out to their offices for comment. Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares is facing a tight race for re-election in the blue-leaning state.
Skrmetti of Tennessee pointed out in a statement that the post-Civil War citizenship amendment was designed to address children of people in the country legally, including formerly enslaved people.
“If you look at the law at the time, citizenship attached to kids whose parents were lawfully in the country,” Skrmetti said. “Each child born in this country is precious no matter their parents’ immigration status, but not every child is entitled to American citizenship. This case could allow the Supreme Court to resolve a constitutional question with far-reaching implications for the States and our nation.”
Trump signed an executive order as soon as he took office declaring that newborns of certain noncitizen mothers, including those living in the country illegally, do not get automatic citizenship, unless their father is a citizen.
The order was immediately met with several lawsuits. In response to judges uniformly blocking it, the Supreme Court ruled that nationwide injunctions like the ones in the birthright citizenship cases were unconstitutional.
But the high court left alternatives, including class action lawsuits, in place, prompting the plaintiffs to challenge Trump’s order to bring their cases again in a way that aligned with the justices’ order. The Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the merits of Trump’s plan.
SCOTUS RULES ON TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS
Lower court judges have said Trump’s plan is far-fetched despite Republicans showing wide support for it.
Seattle-based federal Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, chastised government attorneys during a hearing over the matter earlier this year.
“It has become ever more apparent that, to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” the judge said. “The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain.”
Coughenour said that if Trump wanted to change the “exceptional American grant of birthright citizenship,” then the president would need to work with Congress to amend the Constitution rather than attempt to redefine the amendment through an executive order.
Read the full article here
