Republican AGs show support for Trump’s birthright ruling

The Trump administration's executive order concerning birthright citizenship is receiving backing from Republican attorneys general across 18 states. The executive order states that the citizenship granted to individuals born in the United States should not include children whose parents are illegal or temporary immigrants.

Republican AGs have filed an amicus brief supporting this executive order, challenging its constitutionality claims by Democrat AGs and legal groups, Fox News reported. 

This Monday, the amicus brief supporting the executive order was filed in a federal court in Massachusetts. The executive order in question, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," argues that citizenship should not be automatically extended to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or in the country on a temporary basis. Republican AGs from a significant number of states have rallied behind this order, viewing it as a reinforcement of the original intention of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Democrat-Led Lawsuits Challenge Executive Order

On the opposing side, Democratic attorneys general from an equal number of states have joined forces with organizations such as the ACLU to contest this executive order in the courts. They claim the president has overstepped the bounds of his authority. The lawsuits argue that the order is not only unprecedented but also unconstitutional, asserting that the power to amend or interpret constitutional clauses does not lie with the president.

These lawsuits have found a formidable supporter in the ACLU, which highlights the impacts the order would have on individuals and their families. The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced concerns about the potential denial of citizenship for children born in the U.S. whose parents are part of the groups they represent.

Republican AGs Defend Original Intent of Citizenship Law

Brenna Bird, the Attorney General of Iowa, has been instrumental in championing this brief. She has provided a defense for the executive order, noting that granting citizenship to children born to parents who are in the U.S. temporarily or without authorization is not aligned with the original understanding of the Constitution. In Bird's view, complying with this original interpretation is crucial to preserving the essence of American citizenship.

Bird has further explained that if someone is in the country on a tourism visa and chooses that opportunity to give birth, their child may not fit within the criteria for citizenship initially laid out. “It’s the taxpayers that are paying for the health care,” Bird stated, "whether through Medicaid or hospital services."

Financial Implications and Citizenship Criteria

To Bird and her supporting AGs, the financial burden on states is another critical rationale for backing the executive order. According to the brief, when undocumented immigrants or non-permanent residents utilize Medicaid or other health insurance programs for their children born in the U.S., it leads to increased costs absorbed by the state's resources. Hence, the lawyers representing these states argue that the order will alleviate such financial strains, coinciding with their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Meanwhile, in certain border regions, hospital administrators have reportedly seen instances where pregnant women cross natural borders like rivers to reach U.S. facilities for childbirth, with an objective of securing citizenship for their newborns. The executive order, according to the Republican legal representatives, is aimed at addressing such scenarios.

Contentions Over Citizenship and Legal Authority

The Republican attorneys general have contended that this order aims at preventing the misuse of birthright citizenship as a tool for bypassing immigration laws. They claim that the promise of U.S. citizenship motivates some pregnant women to take extraordinary risks merely to give birth on American soil.

However, the lawsuits from the Democrats find this executive approach troubling, stressing that it seeks to shift longstanding interpretations of constitutional principles under the guise of administrative adjustments. As stated in the lawsuit: "The President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment."

Broader Legal and Political Implications

As this legal battle unfolds, it echoes broader ideological divides seen in U.S. politics concerning immigration and constitutional interpretations. To the Republicans backing the executive order, it represents a necessary reaffirmation of national principles surrounding citizenship. According to Bird, it ensures that American citizenship retains its meaning, while simultaneously discouraging any law-breaking actions aimed at gaining citizenship.

For both sides, the outcome of this case could set significant precedents, potentially influencing how citizenship is perceived and granted in the U.S. The unfolding legal proceedings will likely shape upcoming debates on immigration policy and executive power within the country.