Professors Randy E. Barnett and Ilan Wurman bring a fresh perspective to Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship.
Their opinion piece suggests the Supreme Court might favor Trump’s stance more than critics expect, Fox News reported.
In The New York Times, Georgetown University's Randy E. Barnett and University of Minnesota's Ilan Wurman have released a controversial opinion piece. Their essay proposes that there might be more legal support for President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants than generally assumed. The idea has been met with robust opposition within the federal judiciary.
Currently, this executive order has encountered a legal roadblock, as U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante temporarily halted its enforcement on Monday. Barnett and Wurman base their arguments on an in-depth analysis of the 14th Amendment. This amendment states: "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."
The professors explore the complex dynamics of children born to immigrants without legal status in the U.S. They claim that individuals who violate national immigration laws disregard U.S. legal obligations. Therefore, they suggest that authorities might not consider these individuals and their offspring subject to U.S. jurisdiction as defined by the 14th Amendment.
In their argument, Barnett and Wurman address a nuanced view concerning individuals who entered the country lawfully but only for temporary residence. They acknowledge this group represents a particularly challenging legal question not tackled within their current essay. They point out that congressional decisions regarding the citizenship status of children from undocumented migrants constitutes a separate issue from the constitutional considerations of the 14th Amendment.
"When they finally consider this question, the justices will find that the case for Mr. Trump’s order is stronger than his critics realize," Barnett and Wurman write, challenging common assumptions regarding the longstanding legal interpretation of the amendment.
The text also revisits historical presumptions made by the Supreme Court related to the jurisdictional clause of the 14th Amendment. Barnett and Wurman suggest a key point: the highest court has presumed the amendment applies to individuals here illegally, yet this was never directly debated in court.
"Has a citizen of another country who violated the laws of this country to gain entry and unlawfully remain here pledged obedience to the laws in exchange for the protection and benefit of those laws?" Barnett and Wurman write, tapping into a broader discourse about allegiance and legal compliance.
Clearly, the parents are not enemies in the sense of an invading army, but they did not come in amity. They gave no obedience or allegiance to the country when they entered—one cannot give allegiance and promise to be bound by the laws through an act of defiance of those laws.
A broader legal conversation is sparked by this exploration regarding constitutional versus policy issues. Barnett and Wurman contend the decision to naturalize children born to illegal immigrants is a question of legislation separate from whether the 14th Amendment has already enshrined this right.
The Supreme Court has yet to provide a definitive ruling concerning whether the amendment covers individuals residing in the U.S. without legal permission. Barnett and Wurman argue that any potential allegiance-for-protection argument rooted in the amendment’s original intent questions whether undocumented immigrants and their children meet the citizenship criteria.
With the executive order temporarily blocked and awaiting further judicial review, the opinion from Barnett and Wurman, with its incisive legal scrutiny, contributes to a rich and ongoing debate about immigration and citizenship in the United States. They challenge federal courts and the broader legal community to revisit and potentially redefine long-held interpretations of the Constitution.
This issue, now interwoven with contemporary politics and legal theory, will likely continue to ignite vigorous debate and potentially shape future Supreme Court considerations.
