America First legal presents reports in support of Trump’s executive order that ends birth citizens

America First legal presented two amicus reports this week in support of President Donald Trump’s executive order that ends with birth citizenship For the children of illegal immigrants.

The firm presented the summaries on behalf of President of the Judicial Committee of the House of Representatives Jim JordanR-Ohio, and another 17 committee members.

Although there is Almost two dozen states administered by the Democrats and civil rights groups demanding to stop the order and Two federal judges that govern to temporarily block itThe United States first argues that there is a clear constitutional basis to deny citizens to illegal migrants who have violated the country’s immigration laws.

‘Blatantly unconstitutional’: the judge of the United States temporarily blocks Trump’s prohibition of birth rights citizenship

Trump’s order entitled “to protect the meaning and value of American citizenship” states that “the privilege of the United States citizenship does not automatically extend to people born in the United States” when that person’s parents are present illegally in the United States or when parents’ the presence is legal but temporary.

The summaries, which were presented in the federal courts for the West district of Washington and the Massachusetts district – He argues that, based on the “text and history” of the 14th amendment, the Constitution does not give citizenship to children of illegally present aliens. Abstracts claim that citizens in the United States is a political right, not an automatic right.

The 14th amendment was approved in 1868 and was designed to extend citizens to former African -American slaves. The amendment establishes that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside.”

And EpsteinVice President of Legal Legal, he told Fox News Digital that the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” means that citizens must have their political loyalty to the United States, not to any foreign power or culture. He said that Trump’s order would restore the constitutional principle that only those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which is loyal, American respectful of the law, are citizens.

Numerous US states.

“This executive order is constitutional and legally valid,” Epstein said. “The Constitution makes it clear that it is not the ‘natural citizen clause born’. It is a” natural born and subject to the jurisdiction of the same clause. “And we cannot simply scratch ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the same’. ‘Jurisdiction of the same ‘means something;

Click here for more immigration coverage

“Congress has not specifically authorized that any person born of illegal foreigners on American soil is, by definition, a citizen. That is nowhere in the statute, “he explained. “If Congress decided to approve a law and the courts said it was constitutional, and said that, in fact, if you are born on American land, you are a citizen, then, we are bound by that law and the Supreme Courts and the federal courts affirm that. But that is not the law. “

Epstein said that American politics to extend citizens to anyone born on American soil, including those born of illegal immigrants, breaks with the US tradition and interrupts the rule of law.

Republican State Ags Back Trump Birthright Citizenship Order in the judicial presentation: “Taxpayers are in the hook”

“There are many things that hang here,” he explained. “If we have an interpretation of the 14th amendment that says that anyone who was born here is like African Americans who have a history of slavery or terrible things, then we really dilute that American tradition to deal with the rights of the descendants of former slaves and That is not what amendment 14 was designed to do. “

Click here to get the Fox News application

Although Trump’s executive order is currently blocked, Epstein said he is optimistic that Supreme Court will eventually govern in favor of Trump.

“My expectation is that this is obvious. The law is clear, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the same’ has to mean something,” he said. “And if you are looking at the legislative history of that phrase or if you are looking at how it has been applied, even in (USA VS.) Wong Kim ArkThe preeminent case type about this: makes it clear that jurisdiction means loyalty. So, it is not a very difficult question. It is a very clear question. And the law has a very clear answer. “