Happy New Year 2025

Tag: citizenship

Third judge blocks Trump birthright citizenship order

A third federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

The ruling from a New Hampshire judge follows similar rulings from judges in Washington state and Maryland.

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One as he prepares to sign a proclamation declaring Feb. 9 Gulf of America Day. (AP/Ben Curtis)

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Fox News’ David Spunt contributed to this report.

Greg Norman is a reporter at Fox News Digital.

February 10, 2025
Trump admin appeals ruling blocking birthright citizenship order

The Trump Justice Department appealed a Thursday order blocking the president’s birthright citizenship order, hours after the ruling was issued.

The Justice Department filed its appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Thursday evening. The move came shortly after U.S. District Judge John Coughenour extended a temporary restraining order he had previously issued. Coughenour notably scolded the Trump administration in the Washington courtroom, accusing the administration of ignoring the rule of law for political and personal gain.

“It has become ever more apparent that, to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain,” Coughenour said while announcing his ruling.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER: ‘UNEQUIVOCAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT’

The appeal will now go up to the Ninth Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Guam. The Court of Appeals notably issues more progressive rulings with a higher reversal rate than other circuit courts.

The Washington ruling came only a day after a Maryland federal judge also blocked Trump’s executive order.

President Donald Trump issued the executive order, titled, “Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship,” on Inauguration Day. (Getty)

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, a former President Joe Biden appointee, noted the Washington ruling that had previously paused Trump’s order from going into effect.

Boardman said citizenship is a “national concern that demands a uniform policy,” continuing on to say that no court has yet sided with the administration on the matter.

TRUMP ADMIN HITS BACK AS ACLU LAUNCHES LAWSUIT ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: ‘READY TO FACE THEM’

“Citizenship is a most precious right, expressly granted by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution,” she wrote in her ruling.

Trump issued the executive order, titled, “Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship,” on Inauguration Day. The order seeks to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and was one of several orders he signed that day to overhaul U.S. immigration policy and border security.

The executive order seeks to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and was one of several orders President Donald Trump signed to overhaul U.S. immigration policy and border security. (Getty Images)

Supporters and opponents of the order disagree over the meaning of the 14th Amendment, which 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.”

The primary disagreement is over the clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

TRUMP’S HOUSE GOP ALLIES PUSH BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BILL AFTER PROGRESSIVE FURY AT PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

Some legal experts argue that such a move is a constitutional change and cannot be made via executive order. Trump advisers and other conservative legal scholars have previously argued that the idea of giving birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is based on a misreading of the amendment.

The bill was introduced by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham (SC), Katie Britt (AL), and Ted Cruz (TX), left. (Getty Images)

Senate Republicans recently introduced a bill that would reform U.S. law to end birthright citizenship in light of the executive order. The bill, titled, the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025,” would end the practice of automatically conferring citizenship status on people born in the U.S. of parents who are either illegal immigrants or who are in the country legally on a temporary basis.

The bill was introduced by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Katie Britt of Alabama, and Ted Cruz of Texas.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The bill’s sponsors said in a statement that the measure would address what they called “one of the biggest magnets for illegal immigration,” which they believe poses a weakness to national security.

Fox News Digital’s Louis Casiano, Adam Shaw and Peter Pinedo contributed to this report.

Haley Chi-Sing is a Writer for Fox News Digital. You can reach her at @haleychising on X.

February 7, 2025
America First Legal files briefs in support of Trump executive order ending birthright citizenship

America First Legal filed two amicus briefs this week in support of President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

The firm filed the briefs on behalf of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and 17 other committee members.

Despite there being nearly two dozen Democrat-run states and civil rights groups suing to stop the order and two federal judges ruling to temporarily block it, America First is arguing that there is a clear constitutional basis for denying citizenship to illegal migrants who have broken the country’s immigration laws.

‘BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL’: US JUDGE TEMPORARILY BLOCKS TRUMP’S BAN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Trump’s order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” states that “the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States” when that person’s parents are either unlawfully present in the U.S. or when the parents’ presence is lawful but temporary.

The briefs — which were filed in the federal courts for the Western District of Washington and the District of Massachusetts — argue that based on the “text and history” of the 14th Amendment, the Constitution does not confer citizenship on the children of unlawfully present aliens. The briefs claim that citizenship in the U.S. is a political right, not an automatic entitlement.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 and was designed to extend citizenship to African-American former slaves. The amendment states that “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.”

Dan Epstein, vice president of America First Legal, told Fox News Digital that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that citizens must owe their political allegiance to the U.S., not some foreign power or culture. He said that Trump’s order would restore the constitutional principle that only those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. — that is loyal, law-abiding Americans — are citizens.

NUMEROUS US STATES SUE TRUMP OVER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EXECUTIVE ORDER AS SUPREME COURT COULD MAKE FINAL DECISION

President Donald Trump’s executive order is an effort to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci | Christian Torres/Anadolu via Getty Images)

“This executive order is constitutional and legally valid,” said Epstein. “The Constitution makes clear that it is not the ‘natural born citizen clause.’ It is a ‘natural born and subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause.’ And we can’t just scratch out ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ ‘Jurisdiction thereof’ means something; it means you are a loyal subject to American jurisdiction and if you’re a disloyal subject — which is clearly someone whose parents entered here illegally — it means you don’t believe in the law.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE

“Congress has not specifically authorized that any individual born to illegal aliens on U.S. soil is by definition a citizen. That’s nowhere in the statute,” he explained. “If Congress decided to pass a law and the courts said it was constitutional, and it said that, in fact, if you’re born on American soil, you’re a citizen, well, then, we’re bound by that law and the Supreme Courts and the federal courts affirming that. But that’s just not the law.”

Epstein said that the U.S. policy of extending citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, including those born to illegal immigrants, breaks with American tradition and disrupts the rule of law.

REPUBLICAN STATE AGS BACK TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER IN COURT FILING: ‘TAXPAYERS ARE ON THE HOOK’

Dan Epstein, vice president of America First Legal, said that the U.S. policy of extending citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, including those born to illegal immigrants, breaks with American tradition and disrupts the rule of law. (U.S. Border Patrol)

“There’s a lot that hangs in the balance here,” he explained. “If we have an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that says that anyone born here is like African-Americans who have a history of slavery or of terrible things, then we actually dilute that American tradition of enfranchising the rights of the descendants of former slaves and that is not what the 14th Amendment was designed to do.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Despite Trump’s executive order being currently blocked, Epstein said that he is optimistic that the Supreme Court will eventually rule in Trump’s favor.

“My expectation is that this is a no-brainer. The law is clear, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ has to mean something,” he said. “And whether you’re looking at the legislative history of that phrase or you’re looking at how it’s been applied — even in [U.S. vs.] Wong Kim Ark, the kind of preeminent case on this — makes clear that jurisdiction means allegiance. So, it’s not a very hard question. It’s a very clear question. And the law has a very clear answer.”

Peter Pinedo is a politics writer for Fox News Digital.

February 7, 2025
Federal judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order

In a Washington state courtroom, a federal judge scolded the Trump administration Thursday as he blocked an order restricting birthright citizenship while criticizing the president over his executive order.

“It has become ever more apparent that, to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said while announcing his ruling from a Seattle courtroom.

In his order, Coughenour said citizenship by birth “is an unequivocal Constitutional right.”

TRUMP ADMIN HITS BACK AS ACLU LAUNCHES LAWSUIT ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: ‘READY TO FACE THEM’

President Donald Trump signed an executive order to end birthright citizenship. (Evan Vucci/AP)

“It is one of the precious principles that makes the United States the great nation that it is,” the ruling states. “The president cannot change, limit, or qualify this Constitutional right via an executive order.”

Thursday’s ruling came a day after a Maryland federal judge also blocked Trump’s executive order.

In that case, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, noted a prior ruling that had paused the implementation of Trump’s order.

Boardman argued citizenship is a “national concern that demands a uniform policy.” The prior ruling only paused implementation of Trump’s order for 14 days, however, while Boardman’s ruling will last through appeal.

“Citizenship is a most precious right, expressly granted by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution,” she wrote in her ruling.

TRUMP’S HOUSE GOP ALLIES PUSH BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BILL AFTER PROGRESSIVE FURY AT PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

ICE agents arrested seven illegal immigrants during a workforce operation raid. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

At issue is whether the order violates the 14th Amendment, which 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.”

Trump’s order essentially withholds citizenship for the American-born children of illegal immigrants. Critics contend that Trump exceeded his authority.

Coughenour said Trump was trying to amend the 14th Amendment for political reasons.

“In this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon, which I intend to follow,” the judge said.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Meanwhile, multiple states have sued to stop the executive order. The case in Seattle was brought by four states — Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington.

The Justice Department is expected to appeal the ruling.

February 6, 2025
Second federal judge blocks Trump birthright citizenship order

A second federal judge moved to block President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship Wednesday, with the judge saying no court has yet sided with the administration on the issue.

“Citizenship is a most precious right, expressly granted by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution,” U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote in her ruling.

This is a developing story. Check back soon for updates.

Anders Hagstrom is a reporter with Fox News Digital covering national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to [email protected], or on Twitter: @Hagstrom_Anders.

February 5, 2025
Senate Republicans introduce bill to reform birthright citizenship, following Trump’s controversial order

Following President Donald Trump’s controversial day-one executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, several Senate Republicans have introduced a bill that would reform U.S. law to accomplish exactly that.

Titled the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025,” the bill would end the practice of automatically conferring citizenship status on people born in the U.S. of parents who are either illegal aliens or who are in the country legally on a temporary basis. The bill was introduced in the Senate on Jan. 31 by Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Katie Britt of Alabama and Ted Cruz of Texas.

The bill’s sponsors said in a statement that the measure would address what they called “one of the biggest magnets for illegal immigration,” which they believe poses a weakness to national security.

TRUMP ORDER ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IS CONSTITUTIONAL, EXPERT SAYS

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., left, joined by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, May 9, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates there are 33,000 births to tourist women in the U.S. annually. CIS further estimates that there are hundreds of thousands more births to illegal aliens or aliens present on temporary visas.

A 2022 report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs revealed the existence of several “birth tourism” companies in the U.S., including one called “Miami Mama” that catered to wealthy Russian clients looking to gain legal status in the U.S.

“It is long overdue for the United States to change its policy on birthright citizenship because it is being abused in so many ways,” Graham said in the Friday statement.

He pointed to the practice of birth tourism, which he said was enabling “wealthy individuals from China and other nations to come to the United States simply to have a child who will be an American citizen.”

NEARLY 2 DOZEN STATES SUE TRUMP ADMIN OVER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER: ‘UNPRECEDENTED’

A man plays with a child while waiting with other migrants from Venezuela near a bus station after being released from U.S. Border Patrol custody in El Paso, Texas, U.S., September 13, 2022. (REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez)

“When you look at the magnets that draw people to America, birthright citizenship is one of the largest,” said Graham. “I also appreciate President Trump’s executive order to address birthright citizenship. It is time for the United States to align itself with the rest of the world and restrict this practice once and for all.”

Currently, standard practice in the U.S. is to grant automatic citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil. This has been the practice only since the 1960s and is based on what some believe is a flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which reads that “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.”

The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 would clarify that to meet the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, a person born in the U.S. must have at least one parent who is a citizen, national, legal permanent resident, or legal alien serving in the U.S. military on active duty.

The law clarifies that it would not affect the citizenship of anyone born before the law’s passage and would only restrict the citizenship of those born in the U.S. after.

22 STATES CHALLENGE TRUMP’S ‘UNCONSTITUTIONAL’ BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER

US President Donald Trump speaks with US Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott (R) as they participates in a ceremony commemorating the 200th mile of border wall at the international border with Mexico in San Luis, Arizona, June 23, 2020. (SAUL LOEB/AFP )

CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE

This comes after Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” on his first day in office. The order, which has since been temporarily blocked by a court ruling, directed government agencies to refrain from issuing any documents recognizing the citizenship of any children born in the U.S. to illegal and temporary migrants.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital that he believes “if this issue gets to the Supreme Court, and it is highly likely that it will, if the court applies the actual text of the amendment and looks at its legislative history — what the sponsors of the bill said at the time — and follows its own precedents in the three cases that looked at this issue, then they will rule in Trump’s favor. This bill would simply clarify what we already know about the amendment and its intent.”

“The most important point here is that this bill is not trying to amend the 14th Amendment,” he said. “It is simply explaining what the terms of the 14th Amendment mean.”

“I think it is important for Congress to reemphasize what it said when it first sponsored and passed the 14th Amendment: that the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the U.S. would not apply to the child of an alien who is illegally in the U.S. and is, when born, a citizen of the country of the child’s parents, and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.,” he went on. “The current statute, 8 USC 1401, simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment. It has been totally misinterpreted in recent decades by those who mistakenly say the amendment and the federal law only require birth in the U.S.”

TRUMP ADMIN HITS BACK AS ACLU LAUNCHES LAWSUIT ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: ‘READY TO FACE THEM’

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Echoing the language used in Trump’s order, Britt said that “the promise of American citizenship should not incentivize illegal migration, but that’s exactly what has happened for far too long.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“It’s time to fix this,” said Britt. “Senator Lindsey Graham’s and my Birthright Citizenship Act would codify President Trump’s commonsense stance and end the abuse of birthright citizenship that I do not believe is consistent with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. This will protect our nation’s sovereignty, disincentivize illegal migration, and ensure America’s citizenship practices are stronger and better aligned with peer countries around the globe.”

This comes after House Science and Technology Committee Chairman Brian Babin, R-Texas, introduced a bill on Jan. 21 to similarly clarify that the 14th Amendment does not include children of those who are in the country illegally or on a temporary basis.

Peter Pinedo is a politics writer for Fox News Digital.

February 3, 2025
Republican state AGs back Trump birthright citizenship order in court filing: ‘Taxpayers are on the hook’

FIRST ON FOX: Republican attorneys general from 18 states are pushing back against lawsuits filed by Democrat AGs and legal groups nationwide challenging the Trump administration’s executive order on birthright citizenship through an amicus brief filing set to be filed Monday, Fox News Digital has learned.

“If someone comes on a tourist visa to have an anchor baby, they are not under that original meaning of the United States Constitution,” Iowa AG Brenna Bird told Fox News Digital in an interview Monday. Bird is the lead AG leading an amicus brief filing in support of the executive order on Monday.

“Oftentimes, when this has happened. It’s the taxpayers that are paying for the health care through Medicaid or through hospitals, paying for care for someone to have a child, or the state child health insurance system as well,” Bird said. “Each state has a system that helps kids without insurance, and so the taxpayers are on the hook here for all the costs.”

TRUMP ADMIN HITS BACK AS ACLU LAUNCHES LAWSUIT ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: ‘READY TO FACE THEM’

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, alongside more than a dozen state AGs, filed an amicus brief supporting President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. (Getty Images)

Bird’s amicus brief comes in response to 18 Democrat-led states who launched their own lawsuit, claiming the order is unconstitutional and “unprecedented.”

“The President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute. Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth,” the lawsuit reads.

Attorneys general from California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine and others signed on to the suit, along with the city and county of San Francisco and Washington, D.C.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration the same day he signed the order “on behalf of organizations with members whose babies born on U.S. soil will be denied citizenship under the order.” The ACLU also claimed the order is unconstitutional and against congressional intent and Supreme Court precedent.

TRUMP’S HOUSE GOP ALLIES PUSH BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BILL AFTER PROGRESSIVE FURY AT PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

ICE agents arrested seven illegal immigrants during a workforce operation raid. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

Bird’s brief – signed by Republican AGs from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming – focuses on several arguments.

The first part of the 13-page brief claims that President Donald Trump’s executive order complies with the “original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The second portion claims Trump’s order “reduces harm to the states.”

The brief states that the “Plaintiffs’ erroneous Citizenship Clause interpretation will continue the powerful incentive for citizens of foreign countries to give birth on American soil, even if they must illegally enter this country to do so.”

“The lure of American citizenship motivates pregnant women to travel to America to give birth,” the brief reads. “Some women, desperate to give birth in the United States, cross the border the day they deliver their baby.”

A border hospital administrator described witnessing pregnant women arriving at the hospital in active labor, still wet and shivering from crossing the river, determined to give birth in the U.S., the brief, which will be filed in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, says.

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EXECUTIVE ORDER FACES LEGAL CHALLENGES FROM 22 STATES

President Donald Trump, right, signs executive orders on stage at an indoor Presidential Inauguration parade event in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Jan. 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

Trump’s order, titled the “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” states that “the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States” when the individual’s parents are illegal immigrants living in the U.S. or if their presence is lawful but temporary. It was among the first orders he signed after taking office in early January.

“President Trump is restoring the meaning and value of American citizenship, and also making sure that if someone is breaking the law, they won’t be rewarded for that by getting citizenship,” Bird said. “And so it’s following the Constitution and making sure that we’re upholding our immigration laws.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital’s Haley-Chi-Sing contributed to this report.

Jamie Joseph is a writer who covers politics. She leads Fox News Digital coverage of the Senate.

February 3, 2025
British woman uses wigs, disguises to take citizenship tests, officials say

Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

A British woman is accused of disguising herself to pose as at least 14 people while taking citizenship tests in the United Kingdom.

The unnamed 61-year-old woman used an array of wigs and disguises to impersonate male and female applicants, the U.K. Home Office said.

“These fraudsters lead to people wrongly being granted the right to remain, putting the public at risk,” the agency said on social media.

ELON MUSK DEMANDS UK ACT ON GROOMING GANG SCANDAL AMID GROWING CALLS FOR PROBE

A woman allegedly used wigs and disguises to take citizenship tests for at least 14 people in the United Kingdom. (UK Home Office)

During her arrest, Immigration Enforcement officers seized several false documents and the wigs, which were believed to have been used in the scheme.

She is believed to have carried out the scheme at multiple test centers across the United Kingdom between June 2022 and August 2023, authorities said.

BRITAIN HIT BY ANOTHER ASIAN GROOMING GANG SCANDAL AS REPORT EXPOSES CHILD SEX ABUSE IN MANCHESTER

The UK Home Office citizenship test is based on 24 multiple choice questions. (Getty Images)

Immigration enforcement criminal and financial investigation inspector Phillip Parr said a “complex investigation” had “put a stop to this dangerous scheme,” Sky News reported.

“This individual is believed to have orchestrated a pre-meditated plan to avoid detection, meticulously selecting disguises and test center locations across the country to evade the authorities,” he told the outlet.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Life in the UK Test, a requirement for anyone seeking to obtain indefinite leave to remain or to become a British citizen, consists of 24 questions aimed at proving the applicant has sufficient knowledge of British values, history and society, the BBC reported.

January 29, 2025
Missouri AG backs up Trump’s birthright citizenship order, argues 14th Amendment has been ‘perverted’

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey defended President Donald Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship on Wednesday, arguing that the 14th Amendment clause that the policy is based on has been “perverted.”

Bailey told Fox News Digital in an interview that the 14th Amendment “was never intended to be perverted into some kind of bad incentive to violate our national immigration laws.” He went on to note the multiple attempts by President Biden’s administration to bend or break appropriations laws, saying he fought each and every one. Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship has already faced numerous legal challenges.

“Look, the 14th Amendment was drafted and ratified after the Civil War to fix the problem that an activist Supreme Court inflicted on the United States of America in the form of the Dred Scott decision,” Bailey said. “Again, the 14th Amendment was indented to protect Americans like Dred Scott.”

The 14th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War to acknowledge citizenship for former slaves and their descendants, was not used to confer birthright citizenship to illegal aliens until more than 100 years after it was adopted by Congress, according to legal expert Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation.

TRUMP ADMIN HITS BACK AS ACLU LAUNCHES LAWSUIT ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: ‘READY TO FACE THEM’

President Donald Trump has signed a slew of executive orders since his inauguration on Jan. 20. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Bailey went on to defend another of Trump’s controversial orders, this one pausing the flow of federal appropriations funding. Trump signed the order this week to ensure that federal agencies were in line with the new administration’s policies before distributing funding.

“The president has the authority to determine the appropriation laws that are passed that appropriate funds toward items in the federal budget, but it’s up to the president to then carry into effect that appropriations law,” Bailey said.

TRUMP DHS REPEALS KEY MAYORKAS MEMO LIMITING ICE AGENTS, ORDERS PAROLE REVIEW

“I would ask our friends on the left, where were they when President Biden refused to build the border wall for which Congress had appropriated funds and commanded erection of new border barrier systems, period? We had to sue the Biden administration,” Bailey said, noting that Missouri led the ultimately successful effort against the previous administration.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey backed up President Donald Trump’s wave of executive orders on Wednesday. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

“They want to call it a constitutional crisis, but they’re silent on issues like that. They’re also silent on issues like when President Biden attempts to appropriate funds by himself without congressional authority. How many times did he try to take taxpayer money to try to pay off student loan debt?” Bailey added.

TRUMP TO DEPLOY MILITARY TO BORDER, END BIDEN PAROLE POLICIES IN FLURRY OF DAY 1 EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Meanwhile, Trump’s opponents have lined up lawsuits in an effort to block executive orders across the board. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued over the birthright citizenship order last week, arguing it was unconstitutional. Twenty-two Democrat-led states joined the ACLU in its effort.

President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship is getting congressional backup from border state Republicans and others. (Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump’s opponents argue that of those born on U.S. soil, the text of the law precludes only the children of foreign diplomats from becoming U.S. citizens.

Anders Hagstrom is a reporter with Fox News Digital covering national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to [email protected], or on Twitter: @Hagstrom_Anders.

January 29, 2025
Trump order ending birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants is constitutional, claims expert

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

While nearly two dozen states are suing to stop President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, some legal experts, such as Hans von Spakovsky with the Heritage Foundation, say the order is perfectly legal under the 14th Amendment and should be upheld by the courts.

“I strongly believe that Donald Trump is correct, that we need to enforce the 14th Amendment as it was originally intended,” Spakovsky told Fox News Digital. “No doubt there will be lawsuits against it, it’ll get to the U.S. Supreme Court, and if the court follows the actual legislative intent and history, they will uphold what Donald Trump has done.”

As Trump has moved quickly to clamp down on illegal immigration, his most controversial move yet was to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

The order titled the “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” states that “the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States” when that person’s parents are either unlawfully present in the U.S. or when the parents’ presence is lawful but temporary.

TRUMP ADMIN HITS BACK AS ACLU LAUNCHES LAWSUIT ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: ‘READY TO FACE THEM’

Migrants in Brooklyn; President Trump (Getty Images)

Twenty-two Democrat-led states and the ACLU are suing to stop the order, arguing that it violates the 14th Amendment, which 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.”

The lawsuit argues that “the President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute. Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth.”

However, Spakovsky, who is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an authority on civil rights and immigration, told Fox News Digital that the 14th Amendment was never meant to include the children of individuals in the country illegally or temporarily and that this broad interpretation has led to widespread “birth tourism” and abuse.

He said the key phrase often overlooked today is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which necessitates the immigrants’ loyalties be to the U.S., not to some foreign power.

TRUMP’S HOUSE GOP ALLIES PUSH BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BILL AFTER PROGRESSIVE FURY AT PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

A man plays with a child while waiting with other migrants from Venezuela near a bus station after being released from U.S. Border Patrol custody in El Paso, Texas, Sept. 13, 2022. (REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzalez)

“The 14th Amendment has two key clauses in it. One, you have to be born in the United States, but you also have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All those who push birthright citizenship just point to that first phrase and ignore the second,” he said. “I’ve done a lot of research on this. I’ve looked at the original passage of the 14th Amendment and what that phrase meant subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. According to the original sponsors of the 14th Amendment in Congress was that you owed your political allegiance to the United States and not a foreign government.”

CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE

“That means that children born of aliens who are in this country, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re here legally, illegally, as diplomats; if their parents are foreign citizens when they are born they are citizens of their parents’ native land, they owe their political allegiance to and are subject to the jurisdiction of those native lands, not the United States. So, they are not citizens of the U.S.,” he said.

According to Spakovsky, the 14th Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War to acknowledge citizenship for former slaves and their descendants, was not used to confer birthright citizenship to illegal aliens until more than 100 years after it was adopted by Congress.

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EXECUTIVE ORDER FACES LEGAL CHALLENGES FROM 22 STATES

President Donald Trump participates in a ceremony commemorating the 200th mile of border wall at the international border with Mexico in San Luis, Ariz., on June 23, 2020. (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

As Democrats and left-wing groups prepare to launch a legal war with the Trump administration over the order, Spakovsky said he is confident the Supreme Court will rule in Trump’s favor.

“The problem with birthright citizenship is it gives rights as an American citizen to individuals who have absolutely no loyalty to and no connection to the U.S. government, our culture, our society,” he said. “The Supreme Court should uphold it because the original meaning of the 14th Amendment is clearly not recognizing birthright citizenship.”

January 27, 2025