Immigrants Seek Answers Following Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Ruling
US-USA-COURT-TRUMP-MIGRATION: Following the Supreme Court’s birthright decision, immigrants rush for clarification
As many who might be impacted attempted to comprehend a complex legal decision with significant humanitarian ramifications, the U.S. The Supreme Court’s decision regarding birthright citizenship caused bewilderment and phone calls to attorneys.
President Donald Trump’s plea to limit the authority of federal judges was granted by the conservative majority of the court on Friday, but the court did not rule on whether his attempt to limit birthright citizenship was legal.
Regarding a right long believed to be protected by the U.S. Constitution—that anybody born in the country is regarded as a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents’ citizenship or legal status—that result has caused more concerns than it has answers.
On Friday morning, Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is expecting a child in September, combed through news stories. She claimed to be perplexed and anxious after seeking information regarding the potential effects on her unborn child.
“There are not many specifics,” Lorena said, adding that she, like other people Reuters spoke with, requested to be called by her first name out of concern for her safety. “I don’t understand it well.”
She worries that her child might not have any nationality.
“I don’t know if I can give her mine,” she replied. Additionally, I’m not sure how adding her to my asylum application would proceed. She shouldn’t be left alone without a nationality.
After taking office in January, Republican President Donald Trump signed an order instructing U.S. agencies to deny U.S.-born children who do not have at least one American citizen or lawful permanent resident parent citizenship. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court after three different U.S. district court judges blocked the order.
The ensuing ruling stated that Trump’s policy may take effect in 30 days, but it seemed to leave open the prospect of additional lower court procedures that could prevent the ban from being implemented. Plaintiffs sought to create a national class of individuals whose children would be denied citizenship in an amended lawsuit filed in federal court in Maryland on Friday afternoon.
According to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, if they are not banned nationally, the limits may be implemented in the 28 states that chose not to challenge them in court, resulting in “an extremely confusing patchwork” across the nation.
“Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?” she responded.
Trump has presented automatic citizenship as a lure to come give birth, and his push to limit birthright citizenship is a component of his larger immigration crackdown.
“It wasn’t meant for that reason,” he stated at a White House press briefing on Friday, referring to the hundreds of thousands of individuals who are entering our nation under birthright citizenship.
WORRIED CALLS
Following the decision, a variety of pregnant immigrants and their partners called immigration advocates and attorneys in various Republican-led states.
Given all the uncertainties around the outcome of future litigation and the state-by-state implementation of the executive order, they were struggling to explain it to clients who might be significantly impacted.
An East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife called Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance, on Friday. He was worried about how he could defend his child’s rights because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states.
“He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,” she continued.
The severity of Trump’s limits, which would prevent an estimated 150,000 children born in the United States each year from obtaining automatic citizenship, was emphasised by supporters.
Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesman for the immigrant rights group United We Dream, stated, “It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights.” “That is really chaotic.”
Uncertainty was increased when the Supreme Court decided that lower court prohibitions on the program will continue to apply to members of two plaintiff groups in the case: the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and CASA, a Maryland-based immigrant advocacy organisation. It was unclear how state or federal officials would verify membership or whether anyone in a state where Trump’s order may take effect could join one of the groups to get around the limits.
Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently completed her high school education in Virginia and is a member of CASA, stated that both of her parents were undocumented when she was born and had arrived in the country from El Salvador twenty years prior.
She refused to reveal her last name out of fear for the safety of her family. “I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven’t even been born,” she added.
Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project member Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, recently gave birth.
Since Louisiana is not among the states opposing Trump’s order, she received a message on Friday from a friend who is pregnant but does not have legal status. She is curious about the situation under the Republican governor of Louisiana.
“She called me very worried and asked what’s going to happen,” she explained. “If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?”
New York: A 36-year-old Sikh man was shot dead by a masked gunman during an armed robberyat a convenience store Read more
Stephen Bannon, the newly appointed chief executive of Donald Trump’s campaign, is a virulent opponent of the H-1B visa programme Read more
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton returns to campaign on Thursday – after a three-day break due to illness – armed Read more
NEW DELHI: 2017 may well be the defining year of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's five-year term that began with a Read more
