Roberts had relied on the landmark 1898 ruling from the US v. Wong Kim Ark case for the majority ruling in Trump v. Barbara case.
minute read
Indiana Senator Jim Banks brought a bill on Monday that would end birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants and those who are born on US soil as a result of the booming birth tourism industry. The legislation would classify these groups of people as "invaders" under federal law. Banks' legislation follows a Supreme Court ruling that overturned President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, declaring that any person born on US soil for any reason is de facto a US citizen. Trump tried to bar children born to those who are not domiciled in the US, without legal or permanent status, from gaining citizenship.
Banks told Fox News that he intends to introduce the Citizenship Act as soon as the Senate reconvenes on Monday. The bill's framing stems from the language from Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence in the recent Trump v. Barbara case on birthright citizenship as well as the wording from the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts.
To rule against Trump’s order, Roberts had relied on the landmark 1898 ruling from the US v. Wong Kim Ark case—which Roberts heavily relied on in the majority ruling—which says that there are exceptions to birthright citizenship. The historic case states that birthright citizenship does not apply to the kids of diplomats, “enemies within” the US, or those engaged in hostile occupation of US territories who are not "bound to render obedience to the sovereign [U.S. government] whose domains are being invaded."
Roberts had reaffirmed his ruling with the case, but Banks is set to use the ruling against itself with the legislation. Banks recounted in a June 30 interview with Human Events Daily that Trump said that GOP lawmakers were "not fighting hard enough” on his legislative priorities, including birthright citizenship.
The wording of the bill uses “invaders” to describe illegal immigrants and those that are in the US for mere birth tourism, meaning that children of illegal immigrants and birth tourists would fall under the exceptions laid out in the US v. Wong Kim Ark case.
Kavanaugh said in the opinion that Trump's executive order was not in line with existing federal birthright citizenship law but that he did believe it to be in line with the 14th Amendment, which codified birthright citizenship following the Civil War to ensure that the children of slaves were American citizens. Kavanaugh indicated Congress could make exceptions to that law, allowing for more classes of people to be considered ineligible for birthright citizenship.
Banks' bill states that "any person who enters the United States without authorization or for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism is considered an invader" and changes the Immigration and Nationality Act to exclude children of "invaders." The federal law created on the basis of the Wong Kim Ark decision excluded "invaders" from eligibility. Trump's executive order characterized unauthorized crossings at the southern border as an "invasion." Banks seeks to formalize that.
Notably, the bill doesn't try to amend the Constitution or challenge the Court's ruling directly. Instead, it works within the framework the Barbara majority relied on and uses the same precedent to try to strip birthright citizenship from children of illegal immigrants and birth tourists.
Banks makes a constitutional argument in the bill, citing Article IV's requirement that the federal government needs to “protect each [state] against invasion.” He also referenced James Madison's 1788 writings, which argued that naturalization authority belonged to Congress alone, not individual states.
Banks told Fox News that he intends to introduce the Citizenship Act as soon as the Senate reconvenes on Monday. The bill's framing stems from the language from Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence in the recent Trump v. Barbara case on birthright citizenship as well as the wording from the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts.
To rule against Trump’s order, Roberts had relied on the landmark 1898 ruling from the US v. Wong Kim Ark case—which Roberts heavily relied on in the majority ruling—which says that there are exceptions to birthright citizenship. The historic case states that birthright citizenship does not apply to the kids of diplomats, “enemies within” the US, or those engaged in hostile occupation of US territories who are not "bound to render obedience to the sovereign [U.S. government] whose domains are being invaded."
Roberts had reaffirmed his ruling with the case, but Banks is set to use the ruling against itself with the legislation. Banks recounted in a June 30 interview with Human Events Daily that Trump said that GOP lawmakers were "not fighting hard enough” on his legislative priorities, including birthright citizenship.
The wording of the bill uses “invaders” to describe illegal immigrants and those that are in the US for mere birth tourism, meaning that children of illegal immigrants and birth tourists would fall under the exceptions laid out in the US v. Wong Kim Ark case.
Kavanaugh said in the opinion that Trump's executive order was not in line with existing federal birthright citizenship law but that he did believe it to be in line with the 14th Amendment, which codified birthright citizenship following the Civil War to ensure that the children of slaves were American citizens. Kavanaugh indicated Congress could make exceptions to that law, allowing for more classes of people to be considered ineligible for birthright citizenship.
Banks' bill states that "any person who enters the United States without authorization or for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism is considered an invader" and changes the Immigration and Nationality Act to exclude children of "invaders." The federal law created on the basis of the Wong Kim Ark decision excluded "invaders" from eligibility. Trump's executive order characterized unauthorized crossings at the southern border as an "invasion." Banks seeks to formalize that.
Notably, the bill doesn't try to amend the Constitution or challenge the Court's ruling directly. Instead, it works within the framework the Barbara majority relied on and uses the same precedent to try to strip birthright citizenship from children of illegal immigrants and birth tourists.
Banks makes a constitutional argument in the bill, citing Article IV's requirement that the federal government needs to “protect each [state] against invasion.” He also referenced James Madison's 1788 writings, which argued that naturalization authority belonged to Congress alone, not individual states.
Sign in to comment
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments