ЁЯУН India | Loading date & time... | тмЗя╕ПAPP
ЁЯЪи Breaking News: Stay tuned for live updates on the latest national developments! ЁЯЪи ×
PRESS POST INDIA Logo
Advertisement
Indian Press National News Station Live TV Politics Economy Sports Entertainment Tech Health Cricket
Advertisement
Ad

US Supreme Court considers ending birthright citizenship: What it could mean for immigrants

2 months ago 7
Advertisement

 Pete Hegseth's Astounding Speech For US Troops In Qatar

The US Supreme Court is deliberating a lawsuit that could fundamentally change the explanation of American citizenship, arsenic it weighs President Donald Trump’s enforcement bid aimed astatine ending birthright citizenship for children calved to undocumented immigrants and those successful the US connected impermanent visas.

The implications are vast: much than 150,000 newborns could beryllium denied citizenship annually if the bid is upheld, according to the plaintiffs challenging the directive, which includes Democratic attorneys wide from 22 states and migrant rights advocates.

‘Have BullSh*t Detector…’: Kristi Noem Brutally Grilled Over Abrego Garcia’s Pic Pushed By Trump

At contented is the mentation of the 14th Amendment, which states that each “persons calved oregon naturalized successful the United States, and taxable to the jurisdiction thereof,” are US citizens.

Trump's medication argues this connection does not widen to the children of immigrants whose beingness is either unlawful oregon temporary, specified arsenic students oregon visa workers. This mentation represents a stark departure from much than a period of ineligible precedent.In oral arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the bid by claiming the 14th Amendment was lone intended to assistance citizenship to the children of formerly enslaved people.

When pressed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh connected however the authorities would find the citizenship of newborns nether this policy, Sauer admitted, “We conscionable don’t know.”Justice Elena Kagan voiced interest implicit the deficiency of clarity and questioned wherefore the medication was challenging a precedent truthful firmly rooted successful history. “If 1 thinks that it's rather wide that the bid is illegal, however does 1 get to that...

Read Entire Article