Why Trump’s birthright order could contradict focus on deportation: NPR

The legal fight against President Trump and the desire of many conservatives to end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants living in the country without legal status is ongoing.

A group of 18 Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration on Tuesday over its executive order titled “PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.” Two other lawsuits have been filed.

The Trump administration asserts in this order that the 14th Amendment “has always excluded from birthright citizenship those born in the United States, but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of these United States.’ The order would exclude babies born after February 1 from automatic U.S. citizenship. 19 to parents who are “illegally” present or who have “legal but temporary” status in the United States.

In the lawsuit, the states argue that “the President has no authority to rewrite or rescind any constitutional amendment or duly enacted law. Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives U.S. citizenship at birth.”

But beyond that, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said the administration was “twisting itself” given its stated goal of deporting all immigrants living in the country without legal status.

The lawsuit further argues that children deprived of automatic citizenship “will live under constant threat of deportation,” potentially meaning they would be under some degree of U.S. jurisdiction.

“For an administration to take such a hard line on undocumented immigration and deport individuals under the pretext that they do not have jurisdiction over these people, this is directly contradictory to what they are saying in other aspects of their immigration policy,” Platkin said. Morning edition.

Platkin discussed the lawsuit and the administration’s interpretation with NPR’s Steve Inskeep.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Steve Inskeep: I want to touch on the Constitution here. The administration’s case turns on the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. It begins, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” What does this mean to you? In the case of someone born in the United States and one or both parents are here illegally?

Matthew Platkin: Birthright citizenship has been part of the social fabric of this nation for centuries. And it was enshrined in the Constitution 157 years ago, following the Civil War, when the people of this nation declared that we were no longer going to let political whims determine whether a person born on the soil of the States -United States was or was not an American citizen. And this has been confirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court. Until Monday evening, this was never challenged by a president who signed an extraordinary, unprecedented, rule-of-law order.

Inskeep: Well, let’s go over the two key phrases from that sentence that I read in part one. All people born. I can’t believe I need to ask this question, but I’m going to ask this: Does “all people born in the United States” mean everyone born in the United States?

Platkin: Of course yes. And the courts have been saying this for centuries.

INSKEEP: Okay. But the other part is that the administration is focusing on all persons born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This sentence is said to leave some room for maneuver. You could redefine who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and say that a person born in the United States, a person who is here without legal status is not subject to jurisdiction. What do you think of this part of the argument?

Platkin: I think the administration is bending over backwards to try to find a political way to make its point. There is no valid legal argument that people born here are not subject to our jurisdiction. And frankly, for an administration to take such a hard line on undocumented immigration and deport these people, claiming that they don’t have jurisdiction over these people is directly contradictory to what they say in other aspects of its immigration policy.

Again, this has not been a controversial legal position for centuries. And for 157 years, the plain text of the Constitution has guaranteed this right. And all we’re saying is that even though presidents are powerful, they are not kings and they cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen.

Inskeep: Many Supreme Court justices describe themselves as originalists. They will want to return to the original audience, meaning they may even go as far as the intention in some cases. So tell me, do you understand why the expression “subject to its jurisdiction” is there?

Platkin: Well, I think you need to remember why the birthright is in the 14th Amendment. Again, 157 years ago, following the civil war in this country.

Inskeep: Yeah, I understand that. But why is this sentence there? This seems to limit power in some way.

Platkin: But again, Steve, the courts have looked at this before and said very clearly that people born here – going back to the 1890s, the Supreme Court looked at this and said people born here are subject.

Inskeep: Is this an exception for children of diplomats who are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction? Is this what it is about?

Platkin: It’s potentially possible, but the order is not addressed to diplomats. The order targets people born here to non-citizen parents much more broadly, which again is what we have granted American citizenship for centuries.

Inskeep: Are you prepared to file numerous lawsuits against this administration?

Platkin: We are ready to defend the rule of law, and that is what we are doing here and that is what we will continue to do.

This article was edited by Treye Green.