This decree, the most contested of his second term, revisits birthright citizenship for children of immigrants in irregular situations in order to eliminate what he considers an incentive for immigration to the United States. A sign of the importance he attaches to this issue, Donald Trump arrived at the Supreme Court on Wednesday to attend debates in person starting at 10 a.m., a first for a sitting president, as noted by American media.
Unprecedented Presidential Presence
Donald Trump will thus have the judges in his line of sight, whom he has been calling all sorts of names since the Supreme Court invalidated his tariffs imposed on many countries based on an economic emergency law in February. Apparently expecting another resounding failure, he is already fuming against the “idiot judges.” “Birthright citizenship concerns the descendants of slaves,” he wrote on his Truth Social network on Monday, referring to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, to ensure the rights of freed slaves and their descendants.
“This is not Trump who chooses if the babies born here are citizens, but the Constitution.”
Representative Norman Eisen, one of the opposing party’s lawyers, also present at the hearing, replied.
Legal Arguments in Debate
Donald Trump’s decree prohibits the federal government from issuing passports, citizenship certificates, or other documents to children born in the United States whose mother resides there irregularly or temporarily, and whose father is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. Unlike the descendants of slaves “whose allegiance to the United States was generally established by generations of parental residence,” children of foreigners residing temporarily in the United States or undocumented immigrants cannot rely on the 14th Amendment, argued the government’s legal counsel, John Sauer, in his written arguments.
“The government is asking for nothing less than the reshaping of the constitutional foundations of our nation.”
“The illegal aliens do not have the legal capacity to establish such residence,” argues John Sauer, ensuring that “this interpretation has predominated for most of American history,” contrary to the consistent practice for over half a century. But for his opponents, including the influential civil rights organization ACLU, “the government is asking for nothing less than the reshaping of the constitutional foundations of our nation.”
