BOSTON: A federal judge in Boston on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order that would end birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the US illegally, becoming the fourth judge to do so.
The ruling from US District Judge Leo Sorokin came three days after US District Judge Joseph Laplante in New Hampshire blocked the executive order and follows similar rulings in Seattle and Maryland.
Sorokin said in a 31-page ruling that the “Constitution confers birthright citizenship broadly, including to persons within the categories described” in the president’s executive order.
The Boston case was filed by the Democratic attorneys general of 18 states and is one of at least nine lawsuits challenging the birthright citizenship order.
“President Trump may believe that he is above the law, but today’s preliminary injunction sends a clear message: He is not a king, and he cannot rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen,” the attorneys general said in a statement.
In the case filed by four states in Seattle, US District Judge John C. Coughenour said the Trump administration was attempting to ignore the Constitution, with the president trying to change it with an executive order.
A federal judge in Maryland issued a nationwide pause on the order in a separate but similar case involving immigrants rights groups and pregnant women whose soon-to-be-born children could be affected. The Trump administration said Tuesday that it would appeal that ruling to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the Boston case, the attorneys general from 18 states, along with the cities of San Francisco and Washington, D.C., asked Sorokin to issue a preliminary injunction. That means the injunction will likely remain in place while the lawsuit plays out.
They argue that the principle of birthright citizenship is “enshrined in the Constitution,” and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a “flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.”
They also argue that Trump’s order would cost states funding they rely on to “provide essential services” — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to “early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.”
At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.
The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Attorneys for the states argue that it does and that it has been recognized since the amendment’s adoption, notably in an 1898 US Supreme Court decision. That decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, held that the only children who did not automatically receive US citizenship upon being born on US soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the US during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.
The US is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
Fourth federal judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order
https://arab.news/4y2vu
Fourth federal judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order
UK drops plans for mandatory digital ID for workers in latest U-turn, media reports
- The digital ID would be held on people’s mobile phones, the government said
- The plan drew criticism from political opponents and warning it could infringe on civil liberties
LONDON: Britain is set to drop plans to make it mandatory for workers to hold a digital identity document, The Times newspaper, the BBC and other media reported on Tuesday, potentially marking another policy U-turn for the Labour government.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced in September last year that his government would require every employee to hold a digital ID in an attempt to tackle illegal migration and reduce the threat from the populist Reform UK party.
The government said the digital ID would be held on people’s mobile phones and become a mandatory part of checks employers must make when hiring staff.
The plan drew criticism from political opponents, with some arguing it would not deter illegal migration and others warning it could infringe on civil liberties.
The Times said the government abandoned the plan amid concerns it could undermine public trust in the scheme, noting that when introduced in 2029, digital IDs would be optional rather than mandatory.
Other forms of documentation, such as an electronic visa or passport, would still be valid, The Times said.
“We are committed to mandatory digital right to work checks,” a government spokesperson said. “We have always been clear that details on the digital ID scheme will be set out following a full public consultation which will launch shortly.”
The spokesperson said current checks rely on a “hodgepodge” of paper-based systems, with no record of whether they were ever carried out, leaving the process open to fraud and abuse.
If plans for a mandatory digital ID are dropped, it would mark another policy climbdown for Starmer.
In December, the government scaled back a plan to raise more tax from farmers, months after it backed down on cuts to welfare spending and scaled back a proposal to reduce subsidies on energy bills for the elderly.
