Seattle (AP) – A federal judge temporarily blocked on Thursday the executive order of President Donald Trump that sought to redefine citizens by birth, describing it as “openly unconstitutional” during the first hearing in an effort of several states for challenging the measure.
The district judge John C. Couchnour repeatedly interrupted a lawyer from the Department of Justice during the arguments to ask how the constitutional order could consider. When the lawyer Brett Shumate replied that he would like to have the opportunity to explain it in a complete informative session, Cughenour told him that the audience was his chance.
The temporary restriction order requested by Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington was the first to obtain a hearing before a judge and applies nationwide.
The case is one of five demands filed by 22 states and several immigrants groups throughout the country. The litigation include personal testimonies of several prosecutors who are American citizens by birth, and pregnant women who fear that their babies will not be US citizens.
Cughenour, appointed by former president Ronald Reagan, began the hearing questioning government lawyers, saying that the order “was disconcerting.”
“This is an openly unconstitutional order,” Cughenour told Shumate. Cughenour added that he has been in court for more than four decades, and could not remember having seen another case where the contested action was so clearly unconstitutional.
Shumate said he respectfully disagreed and asked the judge to have a complete informative session on the merits of the case, instead of issuing a 14 -day restriction order that blocked its implementation.
The Department of Justice later pointed out in a statement that “vigorously defend” the president’s order, which, he said, correctly interprets the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. “
“We are impatient for presenting a complete argument on the merits before the Court and the American people, who are desperate to see that the laws of our nation are fulfilled,” the department said.
In his argument in favor of the States, the Undersecretary of Justice of Washington, Lane Polozola, described as “absurd” the government’s argument that the children of parents who live illegally in the country are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of states of states Joined.
“Are you not subject to the decisions of the immigration courts?” He asked. “Shouldn’t laws be complied with while they are here?”
He also stressed that the restriction order was justified because, among other things, it would begin immediately to require states to spend millions of dollars to reform medical care and benefits systems to reconsider the citizenship status of a applicant.
“The executive order will affect hundreds of thousands of citizens throughout the country who will lose their citizenship under this new rule,” said Polozola. “The births cannot be paused while the court considers this case.”
The Government pointed out that the order, signed by Trump the same day he took possession, would only affect those born after February 19, date on which he would enter into force. Therefore, he argued, the suspension is not justified.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, told reporters later that he was not surprised that Cughenour had little patience in the face of the department of justice, taking into account that the citizenship clause originated from one of the darkest chapters of the American Law, the decision of the Supreme Court of 1857 in the Dred Scott case, which established that black people, whether slaves or free, were not entitled to citizens.
“There are babies who are born at this time, tomorrow, every day throughout this country, and that’s why we had to act now,” Brown said. He added that it has been “the law of the land for generations, that you are an American citizen if you are born on American soil, point.”
“Nothing that the president can make that will change,” he said.
The United States is one of around 30 countries where citizens apply by birth right – the principle of Jus Soli or “land law.” Most are in the American continent, including Canada and Mexico.
The demands argue that the 14th amendment of the Constitution guarantees citizenship for people born and naturalized in the country, and the states have been interpreting the amendment in that way for a century.
Ratified in 1868 after the civil war, the amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside.”
Trump’s order states that non -citizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and orders federal agencies not to recognize citizens for children who do not have at least a father who is a citizen.
A key case on citizenship by birth right was developed in 1898. The Supreme Court said Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco of Chinese immigrants, was an American citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he was forbidden to enter the country under the argument that he was not a citizen under the Chinese exclusion law.
But some defenders of migratory restrictions have argued that this case clearly applied to children born to parents who were both legal immigrants. They say it is less clear if applied to children born to parents who live illegally in the country.
Trump’s executive order led general prosecutors to share their personal connections with citizens by birth right. For example, Connecticut Attorney General, William Tong, American citizen for birth right and the first Chinese-American attorney general chosen in La Nación, said the demand was personal for him.
“There is no legitimate legal debate on this issue. But the fact that Trump is completely wrong will not prevent him from causing serious damage to American families such as mine, ”Tong said this week.
One of the demands aimed at blocking the executive order includes the case of a pregnant woman, identified as “Carmen”, who is not a citizen but has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa request that could lead to a permanent residence status.
“Stripping the children of the ‘invaluable treasure’ of citizenship is a serious injury,” says the demand. “He denies full membership in American society to which they are entitled.”
___
This story was translated from English by an AP editor with the help of a generative artificial intelligence tool.
___
This story was translated from English by an AP editor with the help of a generative artificial intelligence tool.
(Tagstotranslate) General News
Source link
