Attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming joined South Carolina in the brief.
South Carolina – Reflecting the continuous national debate over immigration policies, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson has taken a strong stand alongside 18 other state attorneys general endorsing President Trump’s Executive Order aimed at perfecting the application of birthright citizenship as specified in the Fourteenth Amendment.
This collective legal stance was articulated through a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Read also: Angry California man tried to kidnap, kill South Carolina woman after she stopped sending him money
The real meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment
Speaking on the need of the executive order, Attorney General Wilson underlined that it was designed to bring back the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers. He underlined the long-standing obligations that governments bear because of policies he defined as supporting free borders.
“For decades, open-border policies have placed enormous burdens on states, forcing taxpayers to fund services for individuals who are here illegally,” Wilson said in a news release.
“This executive order restores the original understanding of the drafters who implemented the Fourteenth Amendment and ensures that citizenship is not exploited by those who enter the country unlawfully. For too long, politicians have been too scared to address the abuse of birthright citizenship, but this Executive Order finally brings much-needed clarity and enforcement to the issue,” Wilson added.
Long-standing misapplication of the rule
According to the brief, children born in the United States to non-citizens parents were never meant to be automatically granted citizenship of the United States thanks to the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution.
The argument seeks to rectify what the attorneys general consider as a long-standing misapplication of the Article, which they say has significantly added to national security issues and financial pressures resulting from illegal immigration.
The brief notes previous settings when citizenship was not expected to be automatic, most famously in circumstances involving children of foreign ambassadors born on American territory.
Under the rules of the presidential order, a child born in the United States would only be entitled for citizenship should at least one parent be a lawful permanent resident. Wilson and associates believe that this action is meant to bring the Citizenship Clause’s application in line with its original meaning, therefore lowering the incentives for unlawful US entrance.
National issue with immigration
The background against this legal action is the larger picture of past governments’ immigration policy handling. The attorneys general attack the Biden government’s strategy, implying that their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment has aggravated what they consider as a national security problem.
They argue that misreading has resulted in rampant illegal immigration, therefore burdening governments financially. For instance, Texas supposedly spends more than $850 million yearly on welfare, education, healthcare, and spending related to illegal immigration.
Republican-led states are part of the brief
The brief is joined by a diverse coalition of states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, signaling a widespread concern among these states about the implications of current birthright citizenship policies on their economies and security frameworks.
Reflecting considerable differences in the nation about the best strategy to control immigration and the rights accorded individuals born on U.S. territory, the legal struggle over the interpretation and implementation of the Fourteenth Amendment keeps developing. The result of this case could have broad ramifications for American immigration law and policy.
