A child born on U.S. soil to an illegal alien mother is considered a natural-born American citizen under current policy, which is absolutely insane as it encourages and enables more illegal immigration.
It also incentivizes foreign women to risk their lives, and the lives of their babies, by crossing a desert in the late stages of pregnancy.
It makes it difficult to deport those who should be deported. That’s why the babies under this policy are called “anchor babies.” They anchor their illegal family into the United States.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued a ruling which does not strike down the policy, but if followed up properly, might enable us to eliminate it.
Let’s examine the background.
On President Trump’s first day in office, he signed Executive Order 14160 to close the anchor baby loophole.
It orders the government to not issue citizenship documents to persons whose mothers were either illegally in the U.S. or here on a temporary visa at the time of their child’s birth, and whose fathers were not citizens or lawful residents.
It’s a great step forward.
The order was soon opposed in the federal courts by several “universal injunctions.”
A universal injunction (also known as a nationwide injunction or national injunction) is a ruling in which a federal court binds the defendant (in this case the federal government), even in its dealings with nonparties to the case.
Effectively, a federal court (or even an individual federal judge) can rule against the federal government and prevent it from instituting a policy.
In recent years, this practice has become common and has been utilized by both political parties.
It leads to “judge shopping” — finding a sympathetic judge in the federal judiciary and letting him or her rule on your case.
On June 27, SCOTUS ruled on the use of universal injunctions which were being used against Trump’s citizenship order.
In other words, SCOTUS didn’t rule on birthright citizenship but on the process surrounding it.
The case is known as Trump v. CASA.
The 6-3 decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, reviewed our legal history.
The justices couldn’t find the universal injunction in English law at the time of the founding, nor in American courts throughout the 1700s and 1800s.
It didn’t find universal injunctions popping up until the mid-20th century but they were still rare until the 21st century rolled around.
SCOTUS ruled that courts could not use universal injunctions to block federal law beyond the parties involved in the lawsuit. This severely limits the use of universal injunctions, and certainly this one.
How does this affect birthright citizenship?
The SCOTUS decision specifically disavows ruling on the question.
“The applications do not raise—and thus the Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act. Instead, the issue the Court decides is whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.”
Trump’s executive order is frozen until July 27. What happens then?
There are already lawsuits filed against it. The fact that a universal injunction can’t be used doesn’t mean other legal actions — such as a class action suit, for example — won’t be utilized.
A period of legal chaos may ensue on July 27.
Right now, Team Trump needs to be preparing an effective plan to fight this battle.
Perhaps some states will enact the executive order and other states will not. At least that’s a step in the right direction.
Trump can utilize the vast federal bureaucracy, including the Social Security administration.
Amid the mayhem and hysterical rhetoric, the Trump administration needs to do everything possible to bring to an end the insane anchor baby loophole.
Stay the course!
You can find more of Allan Wall’s work at his website and Mexico News Report.
