The skeptical judges on Trump plan to limit citizenship of the dawn but also the injunctions that block it

Washington – The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing to a lawyer for President Trump who called on decisions that blocked his plan to refuse citizenship to the newborns on Thursday that the parents were in this country illegally or temporarily.

None of the judges have spoken in favor of the Trump plan to restrict citizenship of the birth law, and many were openly skeptical.

“Each court ruling against you,” said judge Elena Kagan. “There will not be much disagreement about it.”

If his plan was to take effect, “thousands of children will be born and made stateless,” said judge Sonia Sotomayor.

But the hearing on Thursday was devoted to a procedural question raised by the administration: can only one federal judge issues a national order to block the president's plan?

Shortly after Trump published his executive decree to limit the citizenship of the birth law, the federal judges of Maryland, the Massachusetts and the State of Washington declared it unconstitutional and blocked its application to the national scale.

In response, Trump's lawyers asked the court to brake “the epidemic” of the national orders rendered by the district judges.

This is a question that divided the court and collaborated democratic and republican administrations.

Trump lawyers argued that for procedural reasons, the judges have exceeded their authority. But it is also unusual procedural for a president to try to revise the Constitution through a decree.

Thursday's hearing does not seem to give a consensus on what to do.

The Brett judge Mr. Kavanaugh said that the complainants should be required to submit a price claim if they wanted to win a large decision. But others have said that it would lead to delays and would not solve the problem.

Justice Neil Mr. Gorsuch said he was looking for a way to decide quickly. “How can we get to the bottom quickly?” He asked.

One possibility was to ask the court to request an additional briefing and perhaps a second hearing to decide the fundamental question: can Trump act on his own revise the long-standing interpretation of the 14th amendment?

Shortly after the civil war, the reconstruction congress wrote The 14th amendmentWho begins with the words: “All people born or naturalized in the United States and subject to their competence are citizens of the United States and the State in which they reside.”

Before that, the Americans were citizens of their states. In addition, the Supreme Court of the infamous Dred Scott Decision Blacks were not citizens of their states and could not become citizens even if they lived in a free state.

The modified constitution established American citizenship as a duty of birth. The only people who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the laws of the United States were foreign diplomats and their families and, in the 19th century, the Indians who were not taxed “and were treated as citizens of their tribal countries.

However, the congress changed this rule in 1924 and extended citizenship from the right of birth to the Amerindians.

Since 1898, the Supreme Court has agreed that citizenship of the birth law extends to children born of origin of foreign migrants living in this country. The court then declared that “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth, despite the alienage of parents” had been established by law.

THE The decision confirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Arkwho was born in San Francisco in 1873 from Chinese parents who lived and worked there, but who were not American citizens.

But several conservative law teachers dispute the idea that the expression “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States simply means that people living here are subject to the laws here.

Instead, they say that it refers more closely to people who owe their undivided allegiance to this country. If this is the case, they argue that it does not extend largely to illegal immigrants or students and tourists who are temporarily here.

On January 20, Trump delivered a decree The proclamation of the 14th amendment “does not” extend citizenship universally to all those born in the United States “. He said that it would be American policy not to recognize the citizenship of newborns if the mother or the father of the child was “not an American citizen or a legal permanent resident at the time of the birth of said person”.

Immigrant rights groups have continued on behalf of several pregnant women, and were joined by 22 states and several cities.

The judges did not waste time to declare the order of unconstitutional Trump. They declared that his proposed restrictions had violated the federal law and the precedent of the Supreme Court as well as the simple words of the 14th amendment.

In mid-March, Trump lawyers sent an emergency call to the Supreme Court with “a modest demand”. Rather than deciding on “important constitutional questions” involving citizenship of the right of birth, they urged the judges to slow down the practice of district judges transmitting orders on a national scale.

They have “reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” they said.

A month later, and without other explanation, the court agreed to hear arguments according to this request.

General D. John Sauer had trouble explaining how judges should take place in the face of a government policy that would be unconstitutional and harm an incalculable number of people. Is it wise or realistic to insist that thousands of people connect to prosecution? The judges asked.

He also had trouble explaining how such a new policy would be applied.

“How will it work?” What do hospitals do with a newborn baby? ” Asked Kavanaugh. “What are the states doing with a newborn?”

“Federal officials will have to understand this, essentially,” said Sauer, noting that the order of Trump, if he was confirmed, would not take effect for 30 days.

California has joined 21 other states to continue its doors to block Trump's order, but California Atty. General Rob Bonta said it was important that these decisions apply to the national level.

“The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution belong to everyone in this country – not only those born in the States of which the attorneys general have risen to challenge the president's illegal decree. It is clear that a national injunction is not only appropriate here to avoid devastating damage to states and their residents, but also directly aligned with the argument of the previous Supreme Court, “said Bonta after Thursday's argument.

The judges are likely to give a complete opinion in Trump against Casa, but that may be done until the end of June.