The European Union Supreme Court evaluates whether the judge may be the issue of citizens to give birth

The United States Supreme Court evaluates this Thursday if the judge It can prevent President Donald Trump’s decree at the national level, After many attempts to cancel citizens with birth. On January 20, on the day of his investment, Donald Trump signed one of his most critical decrees. Its goal: denying this right to immigrant children in an irregular position or a low temporary residence status, such as asylum or visas.

The principle of citizenship is devoted to birth in the fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution, which was valid for more than 150 years and decides that anyone born on the United States is a citizen. Trump’s decree was challenged and suspended by the Maryland County Courts, Massachusetts (both in the northeast) and Washington (northwest). They consider it unconstitutional.

Trump usually attacks judges when they take it on the contrary. In the social truth network, he described it as “extremist left judges” those who issue precautionary measures at the country level.

It can “destroy our country!” He said about the judges, according to him, “They want to take over the presidential powers, without the need to reach 80 million votes” in the polls.

Democratic judges and Republicans have frozen Trump’s other initiatives, many of whom are immigrants. Looking at this position, his government submitted an emergency appeal before the Supreme Court, consisting of nine judges, including six governors. He is asked to restrict the implementation of the court order to the parties that submitted the case and the region headed by the judge.

“The need for this court has become urgent because global precautionary measures have reached the levels of tsunami,” said the legal advisor to the administration, John Sawir, who will argue on Thursday in favor of Trump. He added, “Preventive measures are harmful to the system of separation of powers by preventing the executive authority from carrying out a basic policy of the president.”

Other presidents complained of precautionary measures during their states because they were linked to their hands, But no one faced a lot at this short time. Stephen Shewin, professor of constitutional law at the University of Illinois at Chicago, explains that there is a reason for this.

“We have seen a wave of Trump administration’s activity because we have not seen it before from another president,” Shwin said. He added: “The Trump administration is over again and again and the courts do what the courts are doing, which is the restriction of illegal laws in the system of separation of powers.”

The two groups that challenge the Trump decree, Casa and ASAP, consider that the government’s attempt to limit the application of the ruling is meaningless, especially in the right to citizenship according to childbirth. The comprehensive order of the court “in this case preserves the unification of the nationality of the United States” because the child is a citizen “should not depend on the country they are born.”

If the Supreme Court obtained Trump, “The child will be a citizen in the United States and a full member of the company if he was born in New Jersey, but he is a foreigner for mutating if he is born in Tennessee,” they give an example.

Another problem. Publicists who want the National Court order can raise resources before the courts that it believes will be comprehensive. Conservatives who wanted to prohibit failed birth control pills used this tactic effectively during the mandate of former Democratic President Joe Biden, because they filed the lawsuit against a judge in Texas, which Trump appointed, who opposed the abortion.

Regardless of what the judges decide the preventive measures at the country level, The Trump issue is expected to end the automatic citizenship of childbirth “Maybe sooner, not later,” says Shwin.

DMR