President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to unilaterally revoke the constitutional right to citizenship for immigrants' offspring would result in food and health care being taken away from "countless children," according to state and local government officials who are backing a lawsuit in defense of the 14th Amendment.
In the case, New Jersey v. Donald Trump, filed last month in a Massachusetts federal court, officials at all levels across 24 states signed on to an amicus brief warning about the burden that Trump’s effort to unilaterally eliminate birthright citizenship would impose on their governments. Experts told Salon that burden is part of the reason why Trump's order is likely to be put on hold by federal courts.
The amicus brief describes how the order would require communities to figure out new ways to establish citizenship. Under Trump's order, “Traditional birth certificates will no longer suffice as proof of citizenship,” the brief notes, forcing parents and officials to engage in extensive work to prove eligibility for every baby born in America. This would “cause administrative confusion and burden, financial harm to state and local governments directly, and immeasurable harm to individuals" of all backgrounds.
The brief also describes a possible effect of the order that has been overlooked: the fact that it would “strip newborns and young children born on U.S. soil of crucial public benefits.”
Currently, newborn babies and young children in the United States are eligible for Children’s Health Insurance Program benefits and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits regardless of their parent’s immigration status. However, if Trump’s executive order successfully changes the current and longstanding reading of the 14th Amendment, “those benefits will be snatched away from countless children,” per the brief.
“Families will struggle to make ends meet,” the brief reads. “Localities, as the unit of government closest to the ground, will be forced to pick up the pieces and address these cascading harms. Just as disturbing, some families may become reluctant to utilize any government services al all (due to fear of removal which can have its own public health consequences.”
These government services, the local government write, allow families and their children to "thrive and contribute to the community without fear of hunger, lack of housing, or inability to access health care." The restriction of benefits would not just affect the children of undocumented immigrants, however.
“Though the rhetoric surrounding the Order has focused on undocumented noncitizen parents, the Order would deny U.S. citizenship — and the associated public benefit— not just to children of undocumented immigrants, but to those whose parents are present in our communities on work or student visas,” the brief reads.
The authors add that it would likely become harder for a;; U.S. citizens to collect benefits now that a birth certificate would no longer be sufficient to prove American citizenship, writing that “local government will functionally have no way to verify citizenship for a large majority of eligible residents.”
These various economic stresses, the authors of the brief say, will ultimately lead to a rise in homelessness and other public health concerns. The brief was also filed in other cases challenging Trump's executive order, including: Casa Inc. v. Trump in the District of Maryland; Washington v. Trump in the Western District of Washington; and New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump in the District of New Hampshire.
Robert Peck, president of the Center for Constitutional Litigation, told Salon that there's "a strong case for a nationwide injunction in this case" and that this brief serves as "a thumb on the scale" in support of the states seeking to put Trump's executive order on hold.
"The attorneys general of 22 states initiated the lawsuit. If a court were to issue an injunction, it makes little sense to only include those 22 states scattered across the country, when one criterion for an injunction is probability for success, which seems likely to be met here," Peck said.
In the case, the state attorneys general have argued that Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship amounts to "a flagrant violation of our Constitution," in the words of Matthew Platfkin, the attorney general of New Jersey.
“For more than 150 years, our country has followed the same basic rule: babies who are born in this country are American citizens," Platkin said in a statement on the lawsuit. "State Attorneys General have been preparing for illegal actions like this one, and today’s immediate lawsuit sends a clear message to the Trump Administration that we will stand up for our residents and their basic constitutional rights.”
