Trump Turns to Visas and Fraud Enforcement in Citizenship Fight.
President Donald Trump lost a major battle over birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court this summer.
But he hasn’t stopped fighting over who should qualify for American citizenship.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 30 in Trump v. Barbara that children born in the United States to parents who are here illegally or temporarily are generally citizens at birth under the 14th Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
That ruling knocked down the heart of Trump’s original effort to narrow automatic citizenship.
So the administration changed tactics.
On August 6, Trump issued two new executive orders aimed at areas where the administration believes it still has legal room to act.
One focuses on categories that may fall outside the Supreme Court's general rule. The other goes after something much easier for the federal government to regulate:
Birth tourism.
Birth tourism is pretty much what it sounds like.
A foreign national travels to the United States while pregnant, gives birth here and returns home with a child who holds American citizenship.
The issue isn't simply that a foreign visitor gives birth while visiting America. The legal problem comes when someone lies to the government about why they're seeking a visa or entering the country.
That's where Trump may have stronger ground.
The Justice Department has already told federal prosecutors to give greater priority to suspected birth tourism schemes.
Prosecutors can use existing laws involving visa fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and other crimes when the evidence supports charges.
Trump's new order directs the State and Homeland Security departments to tighten scrutiny of visa applicants and take steps against people believed to be using temporary visas for birth tourism.
In other words, the administration can't simply erase the Supreme Court ruling. But it can police the front door.
Citizenship Is Still a Live Political Fight
There's another important piece of this debate.
Federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. §1401(a), closely tracks the 14th Amendment and says a person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a citizen.
The Supreme Court concluded that language covers children of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors in most circumstances.
That means changing the rule through presidential action alone is now much harder.
Congress could still debate changes to federal immigration law. A constitutional amendment is also an option.
Critics of Trump's approach, including the ACLU, argue the new orders are an attempt to get around the Supreme Court's decision.
The group has already gone back to court seeking to block the administration's latest moves.
The White House argues it's operating within the exceptions and enforcement powers left intact by the ruling.
That's the next legal fight.
Why Nevada Should Pay Attention
This isn't some faraway Washington debate.
Nevada is one of America's most immigrant-heavy states. Census data show that about 19 percent of Nevada residents are foreign-born.
That's also why conservatives should be careful about how this issue is framed. Legal immigration and immigration fraud aren't the same thing.
People who come here legally, follow the rules, become citizens and build lives in Nevada aren't the problem.
In fact, they're among the people with the biggest reason to demand that the rules mean something.
Think of it like standing in line. If thousands of people wait their turn and follow the rules, government shouldn't look the other way when somebody tries to cut the line through fraud.
The Supreme Court has now drawn a clear constitutional boundary around birthright citizenship. Trump's response is to work the territory that remains.
That means tougher visa screening, more fraud investigations, prosecutions of illegal schemes and pressure on Congress to address what the executive branch can't change by itself.
The big constitutional fight may have been decided for now. The immigration enforcement fight clearly hasn't.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. Digital technology may have been used in the research, writing, or production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
