I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE ABOUT A QUARTER MILLION BIRTHRIGHT BABIES BORN PER YEAR TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

There are from what I currently see, three cases collectively brought together that for the purposes of this article we will call DONALD J.TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. CASA, INC., ET AL. President Trump issued an Executive Order on the first day of his current Presidential term ending birthright citizenship to those in which both parents are illegal immigrants. There may well be a clarified case name and maybe an opinion by the time you read this article so we will see how my comments and thoughts may differ or be in line with the ultimate opinion of the United States Supreme Court.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Esq. argued for President Trump, et al. that the Executive Order issued supports the 14th amendment as one of the two issues before the Court. The 14th Amendment supported the citizenship of former slaves as read in the first section of that Amendment; All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The second issue has to do with the power of the lower courts in their effect since there have already been forty or more nationwide injunctions issued involving Federal policies since the beginning of President Trump’s second term in January. Thirty-five of those injunctions have come from just five jurisdictions. For purposes of this question and article I will not include lower court weight on nationwide policy in my discussion points since there is less similarity with the question at hand.

Looking at that first issue, the fourteenth amendment was passed in 1868 as a part of the Reconstruction Amendments. There was considerable rejection of the Amendment by the former slave states and readmission requirements of duly elected Southern representatives were illegal in that ratification of the Amendment was required for the admission of those representatives to Congress. It would be similar to a majority Congress restricting the participation of minority members who disagree with certain issues. For purposes of this article we will not discuss any other sections of this Amendment except for the first. The first section however, has been a part of some of the most litigated and contentious legal cases. Those cases include Brown v Board of Education regarding school integration, Roe v Wade regarding the later overturned Federal right to abortion, and Bush v. Gore regarding the 2000 Presidential election.

The equal protection part of Section I says, No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Texas case, Plyler v Doe, protected children brought to the Unites States illegally in that it was ruled that they too had rights including the right to an education. Though challenged many times, it has not been overturned and has more to do with equal protection under the law. The 1898, United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark involved a young man born in the United States in 1873 to Chinese parents. Though domiciled in California, they were not United States citizens and instead owed their allegiance to China. Ark left the United States at age 21 to visit his parents who had returned to China and was readmitted when he returned the same calendar year. He left again in 1894 to visit his parents in China and returned in 1895, this time being told he was not a citizen and was denied admission. Congress had in 1882 passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. That Act excluded mainly Chinese laborers, later going through several iterations either allowing only a small number of Chinese in per year and at one point only men to prevent expanding Chinese families. The Chinese had come as laborers from about 1848-1855 and were pretty much welcomed as labor, but as time went by were tolerated and finally were not desired in certain labor markets such as gold mining.

Preceding the 14th Amendment, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had been passed saying, “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” The Act was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson, but a later vote meeting Constitutional requirement then over-rode President Johnson’s veto. The 1960 Civil Rights Act added to civil rights statutes in saying “that every individual regardless of his race, religion, or national origin is entitled to the equal protection of the laws."

The difference here is the 1866 Civil Rights law and the 14th Amendment addressed a race of people legally and notoriously brought into the United States though unfortunately against the desires of those then enslaved. In the case of Ark, his parents had entered the Unites States legally and notoriously. The domicile of those enslaved was intended as one of permanence. Those that are illegal aliens are subjects of their nation in which they resided. They have entered the United States illegally and under cover of a certain amount of secrecy because they would otherwise be turned away into the country from whose border they breached. While many commentators believe it is a slam dunk to overturn President Trump’s Executive Order, I don’t believe that it really is. The problem is as brought up by opposing individuals, what happens the day after maybe millions of people are deported and what happens with newborns as posed by one of the Justices during oral arguments of this case? They are sent to a country that they have probably never known and certain segments of employment in the United States will possibly be decimated. Obviously, many of these are minors and would require parental, familial or adult sponsored return to the land of citizenship of a parent or of their parents. A lot of questions and if held in favor of President Trump’s Order how is it logistically enforced and if the holding is in favor of those opposing how does this country continue with illegal immigration and an ever expanding social system to handle a more rapid growing population more dependent at least for a time on social and governmental related services?

I hope that this has helped with your question. If you need a lawyer you can contact the Alabama State Bar Lawyer Referral service or ask a trusted friend about a lawyer that they might recommend.

This article is informative only and not meant to be all inclusive. Additionally this article does not serve as legal advice to the reader and does not constitute an attorney- client relationship. The reader should seek counsel from their attorney should any questions exist.

"No representation is made that the quality of legal services performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers."

THE VIEWS OF SUBMITTED EDITORIALS MAY NOT BE THE EXPRESS VIEWS OF THE ALABAMA GAZETTE.