America’s first legal file in support of Trump’s executive order of ending nationality
America first endured two Amicus this week in support Executive command of President Donald Trump ending nationality of birth for children of illegal immigrants.
The company filed submissions on behalf of Chairman of the Jim Jordan Home CommitteeR-Ohio and 17 other members of the Committee.
In spite of what there is Nearly two ten Democratic states and groups for civic rights of grief to stop order and Two federal judges who ruled to be temporarily blockedAmerica first claims that there is a clear constitutional basis for denying citizenship to illegal migrants who have violated the laws of immigration in the country.
‘Abundantly unconstitutional’: The US Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ban on nationality birth
President Donald Trump signs executive commands at the oval office of the White House in Washington, DC, January 20th. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Trump’s command entitled “Protection and Value of US Citizenship” says that “the privilege of citizenship of the United States does not automatically bind to persons born in the United States” when the parents of that person or illegally present in the United States or when parents “presence is lawful, but temporary.
Met – who have been filed to federal courts for Western Washington District and Massachusetts County – You claim that on the basis of “text and history” 14. Amendments the Constitution does not give citizenship to children illegally present foreigners. They briefly claim that citizenship is in the US in political law, not automatic law.
14. The amendment was adopted in 1868 and was designed to expand citizenship to African -American former slaves. Amendman says “all persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the competences, citizens of the United States and the state in which they live.”
Day EpsteinThe Vice President of America first legally, told Fox News Digital that the phrase “subject to their jurisdiction” means that citizens must owe their political loyalty to the US, not some foreign power or culture. He said that Trump’s command would restore the constitutional principle that only those who are subject to the competences of the US are loyal, Americans who respect laws-citizens.
President Donald Trump’s executive order is an effort to end nationality for birth for children of illegal immigrants. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci | Christian Torres/Anadolo via Getty Images)
“This executive order is constitutional and legally valid,” Epstein said. “The Constitution makes it clear that this is not a clause about a” natural born citizen. ” And we can’t only scratch “under the authority.”
Click here for more covering immigration
“Congress did not particularly approve that any individual was born with illegal aliens on American soil by definition a citizen. It’s not in the statute anywhere, “he explained. “If the Congress decided to bring the law and the courts said it was constitutional, and it was said that, in fact, if you were born on US soil, you are a citizen, so we are related to that law and the Supreme Courts and the Federal Courts confirm this . But it’s just not the law. “
Epstein said that US nationality expansion policy on all born on US soil, including those born with illegal immigrants, breaks with the American tradition and disrupts the rule of law.
Republican State of AGS Rapra Trump’s Nationality Nationality In Court: “Taxpayers are on a hook”
Epstein Dan, Vice President of America, said the US policy of expanding citizenships on all born on US soil, including those born with illegal immigrants, breaks with American tradition and disrupts the rule of law. (American border patrol)
“There’s a lot in balance here,” he explained. “If we have an interpretation of the 14th amendment that says that everyone was born here like African -Americans who have the history of slavery or terrible things, then we actually dilute that American tradition to strengthen the rights of the offspring of former slaves and which one is not what it was 14. designed. “
Click here to get the Fox News app
Despite Trump’s executive command currently blocked, Epstein said he was optimistic yes Supreme Court In the end, he will rule in Trump’s benefit.
“My expectation is that this is without any number. The law is clear,” in accordance with it, the jurisdiction, “must mean something,” he said. “And do you look at the legislative history of that phrase or you watch how it is applied – even in [U.S. vs.] Wong kim arkA kind of prominent case in this connection – it is clear that the jurisdiction means faithfulness. So, it’s not a very difficult question. That’s a very clear question. And the law has a very clear answer. “
