Trump asks the Supreme Court to intervene in his attempt to stop the citizenship of birth rights

Washington – Donald Trump took the fight for his attempt to restrict automatic birth citizenship of the United States to the Supreme Court on Thursday when the administration of the Republican President asked the judges to reduce a judicial block imposed on this key element of their hard -line approach towards immigration.

The Department of Justice submitted the application challenging the scope of three national mandates issued against Trump’s order by federal judges in the state of Washington, Massachusetts and Maryland.

The administration said that the mandates should be reduced universally and should be limited only to the plaintiffs who brought the cases and are “actually within the power of the courts.”

“Universal mandates have reached epidemic proportions since the beginning of the current administration,” said the Department of Justice in the presentation. “This court should declare that sufficient is sufficient before the growing dependence on the district courts of the universal mandates is further rooted.”

Some federal judges also issued caution throughout the country to block certain policies of previous presidents.

Trump’s order, signed on his first day back in office on January 20, ordered federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least a father who is an American citizen or legal permanent resident.

The order was intended to be applied as of February 19, but has been blocked throughout the country by multiple federal judges.

The action of Trump has generated a series of demands of the plaintiffs, including 22 general prosecutors of the Democratic State, defenders of the rights of immigrants and future mothers. They argue, among other things, Trump’s order violates a right enshrined in the 14th amendment of the Constitution that establishes that any person born in the United States is a citizen.

The citizenship clause of the 14th amendment establishes that 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. “

The Administration maintains that the 14th amendment, understood for a long time, confer citizens to virtually any person born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even immigrants whose presence is legal but temporary, as university students or those in work visas.

In the presentation of Thursday, the Department of Justice said that a policy of citizenship of universal birth law “has created strong incentives for illegal immigration. It has led to” birth tourism “, the practice for which they expect mothers to travel to the United States give birth and ensure US citizenship for their children.”

Trump’s impulse to restrict citizenship of birth law is part of broader immigration and border repression, including the task of the United States army with helping border security and issuing a broad prohibition of asylum.

A ruling from the 1898 Supreme Court in a case called the United States v. Wong Kim Ark Long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non -citizen parents have the right to US citizenship.

The Trump Department of Justice has argued that the Court’s decision in that case was closer, applying to children whose parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States. “

His request to the judges marks the last trip of the administration to the best American judicial agency to defend Trump’s actions. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court includes three judges appointed by Trump during his first term as president.

The judges who ruled against Trump’s order criticized him as in conflict with the Constitution.

In the state demand of Washington, presented by the states led by Democrat of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon and several pregnant women, the US district judge based in Seattle, John Cughenour, issued his mandate on February 6 against Trump’s order.

The 9th Court of Appeals of the United States Circuit based in San Francisco on February 19 refused to suspend the judge’s court order.

During a hearing in the case, Couchnour, designated by former Republican President Ronald Reagan, described the Trump order “blatantly unconstitutional.”

In another audience, Couchnour accused Trump of ignoring the rule of law to obtain political and personal profits.

The judge added: “There are times in the history of the world where people look back and ask: ‘Where were the lawyers, where were the judges?” Cughenour said. “At the moment, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon darkens today.”