SALT LAKE CITY — A series of legal challenges regarding birthright citizenship is making it unclear what will happen to young immigrants in the U.S. over the next few months.
Mark Alvarez, a Salt Lake attorney who specializes in immigration law and criminal defense, believes the crux of the issue is challenging the 14th Amendment.
On Wednesday, a federal judge entered a preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order. The order effectively ends the practice in the U.S.
National Politics
Federal judge bars enforcement of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman stated that Trump's order, "conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment contradicts 125-year-old, binding Supreme Court precedent, and runs counter to our nation's 250-year history of citizenship by birth."
Alvarez said this isn't the first time a challenge to the issue of birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment has come up. He shared how in 1898, the Supreme Court protected the right of a Chinese person to birthright citizenship, despite laws restricting Chinese immigration to the United States at the time.
Alvarez claims the argument for taking away birthright citizenship comes down to a concern over children of unauthorized parents not being under U.S. jurisdiction. However, he says the jurisdiction argument doesn't hold up.
"I go into criminal court, probably a couple of times a week, and everybody's subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts," Alvarez explained. "I don't, frankly, as far as birthright citizenship goes, I don't think there's any chance that Trump can change this with an executive order. Even with congressional action, it it requires a a constitutional amendment.”
Robyn Oguinye shares below how Utah is approaching deportation orders:
As of right now, Alvarez explained how the order is functioning more as a political point than a realistic course of action. To change or repeal the 14th Amendment, 38 states will have to ratify the change in Congress. Until then, Alvarez believes the order is unlikely to hold up in court.
