The United States Supreme Court ruled this Friday in the case of citizens by birth, which ended in a frantic day in which that and five other decisions were published. His nine judges did not come to decide on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s decree that he promulgated on his first day in the Oval Office to end the right to nationality of any person born in the United States, especially for the children of immigrants who are in the country in an irregular situation. And they did not, because what Trump’s administration was looking for was for the magistrates to study whether the resolutions of a federal judge – of, put, Cheyenne (Wyoming) – that they contradict an executive decision of a president, for example, Trump, must have effects throughout the country, as now, or only for those who filed the lawsuit.
Well, the high court published a decision (6-3) of 119 pages in which ideologically divided is shown: the six conservatives aside; The three liberals to the other. The majority opinion Amy Coney Barrett. It is said that when these federal judges fail on an executive decision, they must apply their “as closely as possible” decision. It also summons the high court to resume the background case, on the issue of nationality by birth.
It can be an excessively technical issue, a merely procedural issue, but it is a greatly transcendental sentence. Not only because it rebalance the relationship between the Executive and Judicial Powers and changes the rules of the game of a procedural system often incomprehensible from a European perspective, but also because Trump’s progress is paved by the path of the extension of the presidential executive branch that has followed, ignoring the other two powers, legislative and judicial, during the first five months from his return to the White House.
At that time, the Republican tycoon has ruled based on decrees and executive orders, which in dozens of cases have stopped federal judges distributed throughout the United States, a country in which these positions have a more political burden than in other legal systems and are designated by the presidents, Democrats or Republicans, and approved by the Senate. After the decision of this Friday, when one of those magistrates orders the suspension of the application of an executive decision, this will not automatically imply the executive decision in the 50 states.
The current president is not the first who has questioned that system in the United States. As the use of the Executive Power has been growing, since the time of George Bush, son, with him he has done the ability of federal judges to counteract him and the frustration of the successive administrations, also that of Barack Obama and that of Joe Biden.
Trump that originated the case Citizenship by birth, which is guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution, on their first day in the oval office, but suspended the application of the norm
Progressive support
In the oral view of the case, the three progressive judges supported these resolutions, while the conservative members were in favor of putting limits to the power of the magistrates to suspend norms nationwide. Some of them, however, suggested that in this case they saw him justified.
The case has huge implications in the face of decisions they have found in the judges
Trump decreed the end of the right to nationality for birth in the territory of the United States when parents are immigrants in an irregular situation or when the presence of the mother in the country is legal, but temporary (such as, for example, a visit or with a student, work or tourist visa) and the father is not an American citizen or permanent legal resident.
That decree goes against what has been for more than a century that says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside.” It was approved to end the interpretation of the Supreme who permanently excluded people of African descent from the possibility of obtaining the citizenship of the United States only for race.
In a historical sentence of 1898 on an Asian immigrant, of the case United States against Wong Kim Ark, The supreme interpreted the fourteenth amendment widely, guaranteeing automatic citizenship to practically all children born in the country. Since then, the children of immigrants born in the United States have acquired nationality regardless of the legal status of their parents.
What Trump intends, as part of his anitiinmigrant agenda and his xenophobic rhetoric, is to change that future exception, not retroactively. The US president argues that immigrants without papers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and, therefore, have no right to nationality by birth. Traditionally, it has been interpreted that they are and that the only excluded are the children of diplomatic personnel or, in an alleged hypothetical, the descendants of occupation forces on US soil.
[Noticia de última hora. Habrá actualización en breve]
