18 GOP Lawmakers Support Trump's Citizenship Order

A group of Republican lawmakers in the House Judiciary Committee filed a court brief backing President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order on birthright citizenship.

According to The Hill, the executive order intends to limit birthright citizenship to the children of parents who hold permanent legal status, prompting ongoing legal challenges.

On his first day in office, President Trump signed the executive order aimed at changing the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Specifically, the order excludes children born in the United States to parents without permanent legal status from automatically gaining citizenship. This move has stirred vigorous legal battles across the nation.

Republican Lawmakers Show Their Support

A group of 18 Republicans from the House Judiciary Committee has actively expressed support for Trump’s executive order by filing a legal brief. This group, led by House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), represents a notable portion of the committee's Republican members. They argue that the language within the 14th Amendment, which relates to jurisdiction, has a complex historical context.

The brief aims to bolster the Trump administration’s legal position, especially as it faces numerous lawsuits challenging the order's validity. Litigants have filed eight lawsuits against the executive order, citing Supreme Court interpretations of the 14th Amendment that traditionally favor broad inclusion of birthright citizenship, barring a few exceptions.

Democratic States Respond Through Lawsuit

The Republican lawmakers filed their brief in Seattle, aligning themselves against a lawsuit spearheaded by four states led by Democrats. As these states push back against the executive order, they maintain that it undermines established legal interpretations of the 14th Amendment. Courts are now beginning to tackle the complexities of this legal dispute.

In the coming days, several hearings are set to take place as judges consider the potential injunctions to block the order. Notably, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour will conduct a hearing on Thursday to address the heated legal arguments.

Arguments for and Against the Order

Challengers of the executive order emphasize prior Supreme Court rulings that provide clarity on birthright citizenship criteria, supposedly countering the order's revisions. According to Trump’s Justice Department, however, the order is well within legal bounds and does not contradict fundamental constitutional principles.

Adding depth to their argument, the brief submitted by lawmakers provides a 23-page historical analysis. This analysis attempts to reinterpret the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" found in the 14th Amendment. The lawmakers argue that understanding this language through historical nuances reveals a more selective criterion for birthright citizenship.

Analyzing The Language of The 14th Amendment

One of the key points made by the lawmakers is the intricate nature of the "jurisdiction" clause within the 14th Amendment. They assert that allegiance to the U.S., not just basic legal subjection, is central to birthright citizenship. They argue that the drafters intentionally used this complex term, implying that “being subject to” the law represents more than a mere straightforward adherence.

“The touchstone for birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment is allegiance to the United States, rather than merely being subject to its laws or some subset thereof,” the brief states. The lawmakers suggest that a simpler phrasing would have been chosen if only a general legal jurisdiction had been intended by the amendment's drafters.

Implications of The Lawsuits and Hearings

The impending legal hearings will serve as critical junctures in deciding whether the executive order can be implemented as initially conceived. Both sides are preparing to present extensive arguments, drawing heavily on historical, legal, and constitutional interpretations.

While the Republican lawmakers remain unyielding in their support for the order, the current legal landscape showcases a deeply divided interpretation of what birthright citizenship in America should encompass. With hearings set for ongoing deliberation, the future of the executive order will largely depend on judicial interpretations and rulings.

Overall, these unfolding legal battles indicate that the matter of birthright citizenship holds significant complexity. It remains a pivotal issue at the intersection of constitutional law and human rights.