The Kentucky senator criticized the ruling and said his amendment would end automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday he will continue pressing for a constitutional amendment to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally, following a Supreme Court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order on the issue.
Paul, R-Ky., criticized the court’s decision after the justices upheld birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present.
“The Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship is disappointing. That’s why I’ve already filed an amendment to end birthright citizenship for those here illegally. I’ll keep fighting to protect the integrity of American citizenship,” Paul wrote on X.
The ruling involved Executive Order 14160, which Trump signed on his first day back in office. The order would have directed federal agencies, beginning 30 days later, not to recognize U.S. citizenship for certain children born in the United States.
Under the order, children would have been denied automatic citizenship if their mothers were unlawfully present or lawfully present only on a temporary basis, and if their fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents at the time of birth. Those children also would not have received federal citizenship documentation, including passports or Social Security numbers.
The order never took effect because lower courts blocked it through nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling invalidated it entirely.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the core holding.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but dissented in part on statutory grounds.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Thomas was joined by Gorsuch, while Alito and Gorsuch also wrote separately.
The court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore are citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
Paul has long argued that current birthright citizenship policy encourages illegal immigration and creates so-called anchor babies.
He previously cosponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 with Sen. David Vitter. In late April, Paul announced a constitutional amendment intended to clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
His proposed amendment would limit automatic citizenship at birth to children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident residing in the United States, or a noncitizen with lawful immigration status serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces.
“Under current interpretations of American law, anyone born on American soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether the parent was here legally or not. This is wrong and not at all the intent of those who wrote the 14th Amendment. We are a country filled with immigrants, and legal immigration is valuable and should be protected,” Paul said when announcing the proposal.
Paul said he introduced the amendment in case the Supreme Court did not resolve the issue in the way he believed the Constitution required.
The dispute centers on the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War. Paul and other critics of broad birthright citizenship argue the amendment was intended primarily to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves and overturn the Dred Scott decision.
Paul has argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was understood at the time to exclude people who did not owe full and complete allegiance to the United States, including children of foreign diplomats, invading armies and others outside full U.S. jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves current birthright citizenship protections intact, but Paul’s response signals that Republican efforts to change the policy will continue through the constitutional amendment process.
Original article
Comments