Immigration advocacy groups have filed a lawsuit against U.S. President Donald Trump after his executive order to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily in the country.
The executive order, signed on Monday at the White House, seeks to overturn the long-established policy of birthright citizenship, which is grounded in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The policy change is set to take effect in 30 days.
According to a Bloomberg report, the lawsuit was filed in New Hampshire on Monday evening, just hours after the executive order was signed. Advocates argue the policy violates constitutional protections and could have far-reaching consequences for families and children.
ALSO READ: Edo guber: PDP witnesses testify in Court, claim irregularities in poll conduct
During a briefing on Monday, Trump defended his decision, saying:
“The federal government will not recognise automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens born in the United States. We are also going to enhance vetting and screening of illegal aliens.”
Trump’s campaign has made ending birthright citizenship a priority under his Agenda47 platform. The campaign insists that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause should apply “only to those both born in AND ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.”
The legal challenge is expected to center on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals. Section 1 of the amendment states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
While the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has historically excluded children of foreign diplomats, the American Immigration Council notes that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil.
As the Justice Department prepares to defend the policy, legal experts suggest the case could reshape the understanding of the 14th Amendment and its application in modern times.
