America first submitted two Amicus summaries this week to support The executive order for President Donald Trump ends the newborn citizenship For illegal immigrants.
The company presented the summaries on behalf of Chairman of the Judicial Committee in the House of Representatives Jim JordanR-ohio, and 17 other members of the committee.
Although there is Nearly twenty countries managed by Democrats Civil rights groups are prosecuted to stop the matter Two federal rulers rule to be temporarily withholdingAmerica first argues that there is a clear constitutional basis for depriving citizenship for illegal immigrants who broke the immigration laws in the country.
President Donald Trump signs executive orders at the White House oval office in Washington, DC, on January 20. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Trump's order entitled “Protection of the meaning and value of American citizenship” states that “the US nationality privilege does not automatically extend to the people born in the United States” when my parents are either present in the United States or when the parents are “legal but temporary.
Abstracts – which were submitted in the federal courts West province in Washington and Massachusetts Province – He argues that based on the “text and history” from the fourteenth amendment, the constitution does not grant citizenship to the illegal foreign children present. Abstracts claim that citizenship in the United States is a political right, and not automatically.
The fourteenth amendment was issued in 1868 and was designed to extend citizenship to former African slaves. The amendment states that “all people born or manived in the United States, and are subject to the jurisdiction, are citizens in the United States and the country where they reside.”
And EbsteinThe Vice President of America first told the Fox News Digital that the phrase “is subject to the jurisdiction of it” means that citizens should condemn the political loyalty to the United States, and not some authority or foreign culture. He said that Trump's order will restore the constitutional principle that only those who are subject to the Judicial State of the United States-who suffer from loyal Americans committed to law-are citizens.
President Donald Trump's executive is an attempt to end the ongoing citizenship for illegal immigrant children. (AP Photo/Evan Vocci | Christian Torres/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Epstein said: “This executive is a constitutional and a law.” “The constitution clarifies that it is not“ the item of the normal newborn. ”He is“ a natural baby and is subject to the jurisdiction of it. ”We cannot scratch“ subject to the jurisdiction of it. ”
Click here for more immigration coverage
“Congress has not specifically declared that any individual was born to illegal foreigners on the American soil is by virtue of his definition of the citizen. He explained that this is not a place in the statute. “If Congress decides to pass a law and the courts said that it was constitutional, and he said, in fact, if you were born on American soil, then you are a citizen, well, we are obligated to this law, the higher courts and federal courts confirm this. But this is not the law. “
Epstein said the US policy of expanding citizenship to anyone born on American soil, including those born to illegal immigrants, is broken by American traditions and the rule of law is disrupted.
The Republican State AGS Restore Citizenship Wright Trump in the court files: “Taxers on a hook”
Dan Epstein, Vice President of America, said first that the American policy of expanding citizenship for anyone born on American soil, including those born to illegal immigrants, is separated from American traditions and the rule of law is disrupted. (American border patrol)
“There is a lot hanging in balance here,” I explained. “If we have an explanation for the fourteenth amendment that says that anyone born here resemble African Americans who have a history of slavery or terrible things, we actually reduce this American tradition of saving the rights of the former slaves of the slaves and those with that is not what was designed by the fourteenth amendment to do With it. “
Click here to get the Fox News app
Although Trump's current executive is banned, Epstein said he was optimistic that supreme court He will eventually rule in favor of Trump.
He said, “My expectations are that this is irrational. The law is clear,” taking into account the judicial jurisdiction of it. “It should mean something.” “And whether you are looking at the legislative history of this phrase or you are looking at how to apply it – even in (United States opposite) Wong Kim AlakThis type of prominent case in this – shows that the judicial jurisdiction means loyalty. Therefore, it is not a very difficult question. It is a very clear question. The law has a very clear answer. “
