The US Supreme Court consider abolishing congenital citizenship: what can it mean to immigrants

The US Supreme Court is deliberately changing the definition of American citizenship, as it weighs the executive order of President Donald Trump, aimed at ending birthright for unspecified immigrants and children born on temporary visas in the US. The implications are huge: more than 150,000 newborns can be denied citizenship annually if the order is retained, according to the plaintiff challenging the instructions, including the Democratic Attorney General of 22 states and immigrant rights advocates.The issue is an explanation of the 14th amendment on the issue, stating that all “born or naturally born in the United States or naturally, and are subject to its jurisdiction,” American citizens. Trump’s administration argues that this language does not reach the children of the migrants whose presence is either illegal or temporary, such as a student or visa laborer. This interpretation represents a clear departure of more than a century of legal example.Among oral arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sareer defended the order by claiming the 14th amendment, which was aimed at providing citizenship to the children of slave people in the east. When Justice Brett Kawanugh was pressurized how the government would determine the citizenship of newborns under this policy, Sawyer admitted, “We don’t know now.”Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern over the lack of clarity and questioned that the administration was so strongly challenging an example in history. “If someone thinks that it is clear that this order is illegal, then how does that result get that result … Without the possibility of a nationwide prohibition? He asked.A challenge for a century old exampleAn example in question is the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States in 1898. Wong, born to Chinese migrants in San Francisco, was denied entry after a foreign trip. The court ruled in his favor, strengthening the principle of juice soly citizenship by birth.There are only a few exceptions to this theory: children of foreign diplomats, enemy -occupied, and people born in unirrigated American regions such as American Samoa are not given citizenship automatically. However, the order of the Trump administration, if intact, will mark a radical expansion of these exceptions.Critics have warned that abolishing birthright citizenship can create a legal quagmire. New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Figenbam warned the court that such a change would lead to “unprecedented chaos”, which makes a patchwork of legal conditions, where children born in different states or even the same hospital can be treated differently. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called the administration’s stance “a catch-me-i-u-can of regim”, where families would be forced to sue the rights that should be automated.Protests occurred outside the court as the case attracts national attention. Former house speaker Nancy Pelosi joined the protesters, studying from the constitution and defended the long -standing principle of birthright citizenship. “It is about the birthright, it is about citizenship, it is about the appropriate process,” he said.Legal scholars noted that Wong Kim Arch would require a constitutional amendment to overturn, not just an executive order. Nevertheless, the Trump administration has indicated additional measures such as limiting short-term visas for pregnant passengers, as there is another way to discourage birth by non-citizens in the US.If the court is with Trump, it can only restrict prohibitory orders for the nominated plaintiff in the case, resulting in newborns across the country facing different legal realities. In such a scenario, birth certificates may no longer be sufficient as a proof of citizenship, not only for immigrants, but for all Americans.